I am nominating this for featured article because it is the main article of a WP:FT that needs two promotions to attain the upcoming September 1 50% featured article requirement. The first FAC was closed with no outstanding issues TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are not enough image reviewers to get to every FAC, so you should locate an image reviewer and clarify these issues (you should have done that *before* renominating, per WP:FAC instructions, which require that all criteria are met before nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the first nom. I was shocked to see that it didn't pass as I see no major issues. Dr.Blofeld - 15:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC) 08:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All sources OK; issues were resolved at the last FAC, and nothing new has come up. A competent image reviewer needs to give clearance on image issues. I will try to look over the prose in the next few days. Brianboulton (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pre-Millennium Park Grant Park.JPG - No license (!!!) (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10B); not low resolution (NFCC#3B); no specific rationale (NFCC#10A) - perhaps moot, as there's no apparent significant contribution (NFCC#8).
File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg - Not low resolution, no specific rationale, GFDL/CC license is inappropriate (misleading) - an image cannot be freely licensed if it's a derivative of an unfree work.
I am going to archive this nom; TTT, as an experienced FA nominator, you simply cannot keep tying up FAC when it is so backlogged with unresolved issues from previous noms, and you should be taking responsibility by now to be assure that your noms are well prepared and will not be a drain on reviewer time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Kent is a college town in Ohio and probably best known for being home of Kent State University and the events surrounding the Kent State shootings in 1970. I am nominating this for featured article because based on listed FA criteria, I believe this meets them. While there are several FA-class articles about cities, there are few of this city size. I wrote or re-wrote much of the article myself bringing it from a C-class to GA recently using several FA class city articles as examples and guides as well as consulting the FA guidelines. --JonRidinger (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you state how it fails NRCC? I'm not seeing it. It's correctly licensed, attributed, low resolution, limited use (that is the only use on Wikipedia), no free equivalent available, etc. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the issue is the purpose of use, i.e. how does the non-free logo "contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used"? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for being more specific! :) The Infobox for cities contains parameters for a city seal and many FA city articles have their respective city seals. I updated the "purpose" section using the generic template from File:Cleveland seal-T.png (since the two seals serve the same purpose within their respective articles) as the one at the Kent logo was a previous, less wordy, form of the generic rationale template if I remember correctly. --JonRidinger (talk) 05:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The PBS site appears to be down temporarily across the board at this point (even www.pbs.org won't open), so perhaps wait on that? If needs be, the PBS source is one of two sources for that info, so it could simply be removed if the site stays down too long. As for all three OHSAA links, all three opened on my browser with no problems. They are PDF files so that may have been an issue.
The source for St. Patrick from ODE is one that cannot be linked to directly, so I linked to the search results page. My worry is that it won't work later, but we'll see I guess. Replaced the KSU police link and KentNewsNet.com as both simply updated their web addresses. I replaced the kentwater.org source with a different source as it has been down for some time. --JonRidinger (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. The OHSAA links still don't load for me, and the webapp2.ode.state.oh.us link produces a blank search results page. Ucucha16:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OHSAA links opened in my AOL and Google Chrome browsers, so not sure whats up there. Really bizarre. The ODE link was, like a I suspected, a temporary link. The only way to get the results is to actually perform the search again using "St Patrick" for the school (no period after "St") and "Kent" for the city. Some websites have ways listed to overcome this, but ODE does not that I could find. I placed a note in the citation itself as I don't see what else I could do there since the link that shows up in my browser is not a placeholder. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OHSAA links still don't work for me in either Firefox or Safari. I struck the webapp2 link as the note in the citation should do the job. Ucucha18:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried all three on my laptop in Firefox and all three opened, so I don't know what else to do. Is anyone else having problems opening them? I'm just really perplexed. Could it be a connection issue or a problem with Adobe Reader? --JonRidinger (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not Adobe; the first link is not a PDF (and anyway, other PDFs work fine). Yes, I'd like to know whether other people can get them. Ucucha21:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to look at the three links and all of them worked for me with no problems using two different browsers: IE and Firefox. I have not checked anything else with the article. Ruhrfisch><>°°23:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review: In general the sources look OK, but there are several minor issues, mainly concerning format:
Ref 5: The citation should be to the original map, not to a Wikipedia page that holds a copy of the map.
I placed the link within the previous reference ("See also") as the map is much more of a footnote than a source.
Ref 13: should have a link to the pdf file
Removed the "format" parameter as the PDF file is no longer available online (though I have it on my computer).
Ref 16: missing ISBN
If an ISBN exists, I have never seen it and it is not in the book itself (which I have...same goes for the history book by Karl Grismer). The book was published locally by the historical society at a local print shop
Refs 39 and 43: For consistency, these should be cited to "Locke, pp. "
Fixed
Refs 69, 72 and 77: missing retrieval dates
Fixed
Ref 104: comment as per 5 above
Did the same as above, combining with related citation. Map is much more of a visual footnote than the main reference.
Ref 116: missing ISBN
This is a published thesis, so it does not have an ISBN that I am aware of
Jon asked me to check the three links Nyttend also checked. All opened easily, loaded and worked fine and were the same links Nyttend found. Good links. May I suggest also this link. It helps wonders, used it on my GA. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jon asked me to check the three links too and they all worked with no problem. I'm using Firefox on Windows XP. --Beirne (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections: I corrected a link in the media section that went to Citadel Media (which was supposed to go to "ABC Radio") and directed it the correct ABC News Radio. I also added the correct call sign to "W35AX", which was listed as just "WAX". Probably shouldn't what the locals call a station and the actual callsign. I will leave the other sections to everyone else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Few quick ones from the sport-related section:
A couple of abbreviations could stand to be spelled out in their first use with the initals in parentheses: NCAA and OHSAA.
It was always my understanding that if a Wikilink is provided then we don't need to include the full name, but I included the full name with the abbreviation in parenthesis. I can understand that for OHSAA, but does NCAA need to be fully spelled out since it seems to be a pretty universally recognized abbreviation?
Seems like this has been addressed, but for the record the NCAA is hardly "universally" recognized, especially for those who live outside North America. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of the OHSAA, it is linked twice in this section. I doubt more than a single link is needed for those interested in the topic.
Removed the second link
"Several of Kent State's teams have enjoyed league and national success, with the most notable being...". This is an example of a noun plus -ing sentence structure, a common prose issue. To fix this one, consider a variant of "; the most notable is the men's basketball team's...".
Removed "with" after reading the essay
Not sport-related, but happened to notice that reference 160 has part of the title in all caps, which are discouraged.
SupportComments by Ruhrfisch - I think this has all the required information and is nicely illustrated and organized, but there are some places where the text could use a bit of polish and some MOS issues.
Lead - I am much more used to seeing "hiking ... trails" than "hike ... trails", would that read better in this: While most residents drive private vehicles, alternate transportation includes a public bus service and hike and bike trails.
This comes from the name of the trails, branches of the "Portage Hike and Bike Trail". Much more of "hike and bike" trails than "hike" and "bike" trails. Perhaps hike-and-bike? It's different than a simple hiking trail.
After an ec, I now see from your answer and later reading that the official name of the trail is Hike and Bike Trail - never mind ;-) Ruhrfisch><>°°01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History - I would make it clearer here that Brady's Leap actually took place in what is now Kent, perhaps by mentioning the site is now a park in the city (I know the park is mentioned later). I also really doubt Brady was fleeing the Mound Builders - are the identities of any of the tribes known (and if so can they be added to the article)?
There is no deifnitive answer as to which tribe, though many have stated it was the Seneca; however no reliable source verifies that. I placed "an unknown tribe of American Indians"
I assume the township was named for "Aaron Franklin Olmstead", if so I would spell that out in Aaron Olmstead, a wealthy Connecticut merchant, had purchased the 16,000-acre (6,500 ha) township for $2,000 (approximately $25,553 present-day) and named it for his son Aaron Franklin.[5]
Added last name; I guess it seemed redundant when I wrote it to include his last name.
This could be tightened Franklin Township was surveyed in 1803 and settled in November 1805 by the Haymaker family who moved west from Warren and settled on the banks of the Cuyahoga River before building a gristmill in 1807. John Haymaker and his family arrived first in late 1805 and were later joined by John's brother George and their father Jacob Haymaker and their families early the next year.[6] as something like Franklin Township was surveyed in 1803 and settled in November 1805, when John Haymaker and his family moved west from Warren to the banks of the Cuyahoga River. They were joined by John's brother George and their father Jacob Haymaker and their families early the next year, and built a gristmill in 1807.[6]
Works for me
The preceding sentences could also be the start of a new paragraph (split the first paragraph of History)
Again, works for me
Watch WP:OVERLINKing - for example Cuyahoga River is linked at least eight times in the article, three in just the History section. Generally articles should be linked at most once in the lead, and once at the first occurrence in the article, plus captions etc.
Is the year the P&O Canal opened known? If so I would add it to the article.
I think the Underground Railroad sentences could be their own paragraph too. Avoid words like "today" (use something like "as of 2010" instead) in There were three notable stops in Franklin Mills, one of which still stands today.[9]
This needs a ref During this period, from 1835–1839, noted American abolitionist John Brown moved to the village, operating a tannery along the Cuyahoga River with Zenas Kent.
Added ref and divided paragraph
I know it is mentioned later in Economy, but would it make sense to mention that the Davey is Kent's largest private employer as of 2010 in History? Or even that the company is still very important in Kent today.
Made mention it is headquartered in Kent and is the largest private employer
What was the industry that burned here? After a fire destroyed one of the city's main industries in 1909,... could it be briefly identified, i.e. something like After a 1909 fire destroyed the ping-pong ball factory, one of the city's main industries, ...
Added...it was the Seneca Chain Company
Since Gov. Davey was the son of the Tree Surgeon, should that be mentioned? The bill giving Kent State university status was signed into law by Ohio governor and Kent native Martin L. Davey, son of tree surgeon John Davey.[14]
Made mention since I did it for William S. Kent earlier in the paragraph, though since Martin L. Davey has his own article it's not super critical to me.
Since there are several memorials to the Kent State shootings on the campus and the site is now listed on the NRHP, I would probably add a sentence to the KSU shootings section to that effect (the effects of the shooting lasted far longer in Kent than May 1970)
Indeed the effects still exist. I have much more background detail at the History of Kent, Ohio article, which was originally intended for this article before I realized it was getting too long. I added mention of the NRHP and the monuments and commemoriations over the years. It's hard to mention a lot of the other effects because they aren't really sourced. Strain still exists between town and gown, but it doesn't get put into writing very often.
Is anything known about the subsequent history of the railroad yards in Kent? Do they still exist or have they closed? I think it might be worth saying either way.
Actually attended a historical society gathering at the old rail yards just a few weeks ago. All that is left of the original is one building which houses a portion of a drill manufacturing company. I included when they were completely closed as various parts were moved out at different times from the time they opened in 1865 to 1930. It seemed a bit too much to go into any more detail in the history section. To me the main point is that it was a major industry but no longer is. What the site is used for now seems more trivial since it's not a major employer.
Economy - the lead sentence is too long and complex - could it be split into two sentences? One sentence on the river as an early power source, and the other on the later canal and railroads and ease of transportation?
Technically the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad ceased to exist in 1880, so perhaps add stuff in []: During the latter half of the 19th century and into the early 20th century, the city's largest employers were all industrially based, including the Atlantic and Great Western Railroad [and its successors], which operated its main maintenance shops in the village; the Seneca Chain Company; and bus manufacturer Twin Coach[,] among others.[43]
Start a new paragraph with Changes in the structure of the railroad and declines in the manufacturing sector ...?
Avoid "currently" if possible (use "has played an active role ... since YEAR") The university, along with the city and private investors, is currently playing an active role in the redevelopment of downtown Kent ...
Did what I could; it is a current event as the developments downtown are still on the drawing board.
Culture - is it the "Kent State University Fashion Museum" or just the "Kent State University Museum" (section uses both)?
Caught it...it's known locally as the "fashion museum" but is officially the "Kent State University Museum"
Also I would put the May 4th commemorations and planned museum together - currently they are in different paragraphs of this section
Got it; I guess I was thinking having all the commemorations/festivals together and the museums together.
Government section - could the nature of the agreements be made clearer in Kent Fire also has agreements with Franklin Township and the village of Sugar Bush Knolls.[94] - assume they are mutual aid agreements of some sortRuhrfisch><>°°01:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added that they are coverage agreements
Education not 100% clear which district is meant - assume Kent's - in The [former? Kent?] district was created around 1860 and later merged with the Franklin Township and Brady Lake school districts in 1959.[105][106]
Added "Kent" to clarify
Notable residents and natives last bit on athletes needs a ref - assume Kent State has something useful here.
Your call, but the WP:MOSIMAGE says "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text." (so the one of Lucius Fairchild could be right justified instead of the current left).
Moved the pic back (it was originally on the right), though I usually look at the previous picture when positioning pictures as I don't like there to be a whole bunch on the same side in a row. Oh well. As for the source of KSU athletes, does it need a source when it is essentially summarizing a larger list? Both lists are mentioned at the top as "Main articles" (List of Kent State University alumni and List of people from Kent, Ohio), I ask because I doubt there is a single source that backs that up; it would basically have to include a source for each person or a source for each group (like football, baseball, and basketball). --JonRidinger (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is that WP:V and WP:CITE say that the references need to be in this article. Wikipedia is not a WP:RS, and I looked at the list of people from Kent and it has very few refs, and the first person I checked, Lucius Fairchild, had no ref in the list either. I am OK with no extra refs in this section for people mentioned and referenced elsewhere in the article (the Daveys, for example) but the rest need refs. Sorry. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries...I just wanted to make sure I didn't oversource or do work that would just get removed.
I am done with my review. Am leaning strongly towards support, though I would like to see the last few poitns and the overlinking addressed first. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch><>°°04:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one item remaining (refs for notable natives and residents) and you have done a very good job on addressing all the other issues I raised here, so I am switching to support. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I have all the people covered that are mentioned in notable natives. I tried my best to remove the overlinking. In general I followed the one link besides the lead and/or infobox, but I do have more than 2 for links that occur much further apart in the article per WP:REPEATLINK when the links are far apart from each other. So Cuyahoga River and Kent State University, for instance, will have more than 2 links (maybe 2 or 3 outside the lead if I did it right) because they are mentioned throughout the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marvin Kent was in a variety of business ventures including banking, railroads, retail, real estate, and later politics. Seemed like too much detail to go into when there is an article about him linked. "Businessman" seemed to be an appropriate title given his diverse background. I did reword the mention of him in the history to provide a little more clarity --JonRidinger (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments
I shortened the wording used for the inflation function, and removed the false precision. It was over 200 years ago, so an estimate of the value today to the closest dollar doesn't make sense - the nearest $1,000 is reasonable.
The "precision" was from the template, though it was "precise" for 1800 not 1798.
"Initial growth in the area was slow, but eventually two small villages would develop due to the potential power generated by the Cuyahoga River that could be used in gristmills and manufacturing." - the wording is awkward. Should probably be "the power that could potentially be generated by the Cuyahoga River..."
used "potential for power generated..." since it was the potential power that brought people to the river.
"The canal officially opened in 1840, but it would be relatively short-lived, lasting into the 1860s." - Canals aren't really alive, and relative to what? Perhaps something shorter like "but was used only until the 1860s."
Changed to "but would only operate into the 1860s."
"The company continues to be headquarted in Kent and serves as the city's largest private employer." - unsourced.
Sourced in economy; moved source to this section instead
"was renamed Kent State University after it was authorized to grant advanced graduate degrees." - should probably be "was renamed Kent State University after it was given authorization to grant advanced graduate degrees."
Changed
"resulted in significant population growth for the city, growing from just over 12,000 residents at the 1950 census" - "growth" and "growing" so close to each other is awkward. Can you find a synonym for one of them?
"while eliminating ongoing problems with traffic congestion and rail crossings being blocked" - awkward wording. Should be something like "while eliminating ongoing problems with traffic congestion and blocked rail crossings".
Fixed
"In 2003, the old arch dam was bypassed..." - which old arch dam? The text refers to it as if it's an already known quantity.
That was a result of an earlier version of the history before it was edited down to the current size. Added a mention in the canal section when it was built and replaced "old" with "1836".
I went through and tried to get those (Ruhrfisch also stated that above in his review and seemed satisfied with what I did), following WP:REPEATLINK bullet: "where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first." Of those that are linked, as far as I could see they are fairly far apart in their occurances. Like John Brown is at the beginning (history), then in the middle (parks and recreation) and the end (notable natives). That seems to fit the exception for the "one and done" policy. If there are any others that are too close I will remove them.
"even larger population growth in the 1950s and 1960s growing from 12,148 in 1950" - again, "growth" and "growing" too close together.
used "rising" again
"For every 100 females there were 84.6 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 81.0 males." - I assume these ratios are unusual too, and comparisons to Ohio and U.S. might be helpful (similar to previous sentence in paragraph, and following sentence in next paragraph). An explanation for this would be interesting, if one is available in the relevant literature.
That's from the original bot-generated paragraph from the census data. I added some comparison with the US and Ohio averages as well as the average of neighboring Franklin Township along with the source.
The text uses the word "approximately" many, many times, sometimes in consecutive sentences (e.g. "It hosts approximately 90 concerts, four theatrical performances, and four film festivals or movie premiers per year, including local, national, and international performers. Since opening in 2002, it has been visited by approximately 120,000 patrons...") Could you mix it up with some alternatives, like "around", for example?
Did some or took it out completely in some instances
"Each year in early May, the university hosts an annual commemoration of the Kent State shootings, which typically includes several speakers, forums, artwork, and other related events.[63] Kent State is currently developing the May 4 Visitors' Center to cover the events surrounding the May 4, 1970 Kent State shootings." "May 4 Kent State shootings" should go in the first sentence, and in the next sentence you need only refer to them as "the shootings", the reader will not lose track of the meaning or context in just one sentence. Also, "currently" should be avoided; see WP:RELTIME. "As of 2010" or something similar would work here.
Got it. Reworded
"images from May 4" - repetitive. Perhaps "images from the incident" or something similar.
"actual event"
"In addition to hosting the KSU football team, Kent State's 25,000-seat Dix Stadium has hosted high school football games both in the regular-season and for the state playoffs.[69][70] The adjacent Murphy-Mellis Field hosts Ohio High School Athletic Association (OHSAA) field hockey tournament games and the Diamond at Dix is a site for OHSAA regional softball tournament games." - uses "host" three times in two sentences, and it's used at least twice in the next paragraph. Perhaps an alternative for the second use?
got a few out with "venue" and "site"
"56-acre (23 ha) Fred Fuller park" - I assume named after a local notable? Some more information on this would be interesting.
Put mention of him in the sentence. Former Parks chairmain.
"The current mayor is Jerry Fiala who began his term January 1, 2010." "The current city manager", "currently represented by Democrat Kathleen Chandler", "currently represented by Democrat Tom Sawyer" "currently represented by Democrat Tim Ryan" etc. "Current" is a difficult word, because no-one really knows when you wrote the sentence in question. Again, see WP:RELTIME. It should be "as of 2010, the mayor is" or "Jerry Fiala began his term as mayor on January 1, 2010" etc.
Removed every instance of "currently" I could find and replaced with "since (year)" where the info was available.
I'd still prefer wording like "Jerry Fiala began his term as mayor etc." Just saying "The mayor is Jerry Fiala etc." doesn't solve the problem, because the reader still doesn't know when you wrote that sentence. I do like the later wording (e.g. "represented since 2007 by Democrat Tom Sawyer")
This is what it already says: "The mayor is Jerry Fiala who began his term January 1, 2010," so a date is present; same for the city manager in the next sentence. I added an extra comma after Fiala (like the next sentence about the city manager already has). --JonRidinger (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to explain it better. Let's say that city manager Dave Ruller quits in December, and in 2011 a new city manager is hired. Now, if the article says "The city manager is Dave Ruller, who began serving June 15, 2005" then the text in that paragraph will be inaccurate from the second Ruller leaves until the time someone remembers to update the article, which could be days, weeks, or even months. However, if the article instead says "Dave Ruller was hired as city manager on June 15, 2005" then the sentence will always be accurate, even if it isn't updated for years. Does that explain why it's best not to have sentences that explicitly or implicitly use the term "currently"? I'm obviously not going to oppose the FA for this, but I really recommend you re-word it. Jayjg (talk)00:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK I got it...thanks for being patient. "Jerry Fiala began his term as mayor January 1, 2010 and Dave Ruller began serving as city manager June 15, 2005." I guess I saw the "present" nature of the representative section and didn't see the difference. Thanks for pointing it out. Never been this far and am happy to see that FA reviews are more thorough now! --JonRidinger (talk) 04:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The largest percentage of funds, 22.8% or $2.6 million, was spent funding the Fire and Emergency medical services and the city's Income Tax Safety Fund, respectively." Three uses of "fund" in one sentence. Please mix it up a little.
Took out the two that weren't part of a proper name
"around 317 students" - it can't be "around" 317 students, because 317 is an exact number. Something like "over 300 students" would likely stay accurate for much longer, and helps vary the wording in the article.
Got it (300)
"The Kent Free Library is the main public library. It was established in 1892 and was the first use of an 1892 Ohio law..." A library is a building/institution/organization, it can't be a use of a law. The wording needs to be adjusted here.
It was established in 1892 after Kent became the first village in Ohio to use an 1892 state law
"Additionally, many notable people have lived in Kent while attending Kent State University, among them comedians Drew Carey..." - the whole section is about "notable people", so we don't need to repeat that. I would shorten it to "Additionally, people who have lived in Kent while attending Kent State University include comedians Drew Carey..."
Removed "notable" except in the first sentence
Finally, along with/part of Demographics/Culture of Kent, it would be interesting to read a little about religion in Kent - percentage membership in major religions, famous churches/mosques/temples, religious headquarters/seminaries if they exist.
Will look for information. There are no major or famous churches/mosques/synagogues that I am aware of here.
Issues basically addressed. Article is FA quality. I still think it would be helpful if you could add a little about religious beliefs/institutions. Jayjg (talk)00:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can confirm it by looking at the very top of the page. Town or City Seals are always within the image use policy. I have one on the Stephens City, Virginia page I worked on and it easily passed GA and was never brought up once. Shouldn't be here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that explanation doesn't suffice for me-- what does or doesn't come up at GAN has nothing to do with FAC, and image issues are rarely simple. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think you all are making a mountain out of flat ground (ain't no molehill there to begin with), but whatever. I will say, I feel this FA (compaired to others I have watched) is going on WAAAAY too long. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I still haven't gotten any explanation why the image in question is a problem. The initial concern was not elaborated on by the editor who voiced objection, particularly in light of the fact that many FA city articles incorporate their respective city seals (so there's precedent) and there is a place for them in the settlement infobox. The seal is clearly labeled as a logo and has the standard rationale. Other images are all public domain. Are there any other image problems? --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems now the debate is whether or not the logo is even copyrighted. While there is "no blanket use of logos for geographic articles that over-rides the official WP policy" conversely there is no policy that prohibits their use with a valid rationale. In this case, since the tree logo appears on virtually every street sign in the city and on several city buildings, signs, and other things (recycling containers, trash bags, city vehicles), it would make sense that it also be included in the article about the city as city articles are to give a general (yet still thorough) idea of what a reader could expect if he/she went to that particular place. I see it providing much more than a simple decoration to the infobox and disagree that it violates policy, copyrighted or not. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jon on this and I personally think we have wasted more than enough time on this subject (being the seal). They are found on several other FA classed pages about cities and towns, so it isn't like this is the only instance of it happening (examples can be shown). I believe we should get past this and move onto other aspects (if any) of the article. With the edits, changes, and tinkering done to the article, I think this is beyond an FA article and I continue to Support it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are the "See also" items not incorporated into the article? If they're worth mentioning in "See also", I don't see why they aren't just in the article instead. See WP:LAYOUT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated the link to Ohio State Normal College At Kent, a NRHP listing of the original Kent State University campus, though it is a pipe from "site of the school" rather than a direct link. The other two links really can't be incorporated without adding additional info to the history section, which is already long enough, especially considering it has a History of Kent, Ohio article. I personally don't see any violation of WP:LAYOUT#See also here unless you feel each link needs a small accompanying explanation with it. From the guidelines, their presence is certainly appropriate in terms of low number (hardly an excessive amount of links) and relevance to the article itself. --JonRidinger (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I realized too late into reading the article that you appear to be on the final stages of an image review. However, I wanted to add my support. The article looks great and is a model for how city articles should be structured, detailed, worded, and illustrated. Excellent job! My only minor comment is that the paragraph mentioning the shootings (under "History") should probably be split. As it stands, the paragraph lacks a common theme and doesn't flow well. – VisionHolder « talk »04:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I separated the sections you mentioned, keeping the mention of the opening of Haymaker Parkway with the shootings since the two happened at around the same time (1970s); I added an "also in the late 1960s and early 1970s..." to give some kind of connection since the addition of the NRHP listing in 2010 kind of separated the two events. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on 1a. Just looking at the lead, the prose is not up to it:
"It would develop first due to the potential for gristmills along the Cuyahoga River and later as a stop on the Pennsylvania and Ohio Canal in the 1830s and 1840s." The "would" tense is best avoided. "It developed" is straighter. I guess readers will have to hit the link to "gristmills" to learn what they are; could they be glossed in a brief phrase, within commas? The logic is hard, too: first, a potential (what, the gristmills didn't actually happen?), then a "stop", which is at least a concrete thing (but is there a better word than "stop"? I can't think of one at the moment, but maybe there is one).
"which ultimately led to the village being renamed Kent"—an awkward "noun plus -ing" construction. "led to the renaming of the village in 1864 after the ..."?
Careful of "being". "known mostly for being home to the main campus of Kent State University, founded in 1910, and the site of the Kent State shootings in 1970." What about "best-known as home to ...". Logic issue: was it known as home to the shooting? The ellipsis doesn't work, and the sentence needs rephrasing.
"Other important sectors include retail, entertainment and food service, and manufacturing." Name one North American town in which retail isn't an important sector. You might consider omitting this from the lead if it isn't more distinctive. Same for "most residents drive private vehicles" ... it's kind of commonplace. The "hike-and-bike trails" might be worth mentioning here, but probably nothing on transport, really, in the lead. Instead, why not tell us how many festivals and what kind (rock? opera? film?)?
"hosts a number of annual festivals" would be better.
rewritten as "Settlers were initially attracted to the area due to its location along the Cuyahoga River as a place for water-powered mills. Later development came as a result of the village being along the route of the Pennsylvania and Ohio Canal in the 1830s and 1840s."
Much better, like most of these below, except "came in the 1830s and 1840s because the village lay/was on/along the route of ...". The noun plus -ing problem seems to arise when expressing causalities. Tony(talk)17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed "ultimately" though to be honest it doesn't sound that awkward; since it's summarizing what is later explained more in detail in the History section (and even more at History of Kent, Ohio) it seems appropriate.
"known as the home of..."; also did a few rewordings
How many and what kinds seems a bit too detailed for such a minor part of the article, especially since not all festivals/fairs were that notable to even mention in the culture section. I added mention of 3 of them in a general sense, but seeing as this is giving a general overview of the article, anything more seems like a bit too much detail for an intro.
I went through and changed what I could. Since I've seen this article thousands of times, I am sure there are things I missed. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to voice my pure and unadulterated pissed-off-ness at this whole FAC. JonRidinger did everything asked of him, but the slowness of other users and editors to respond (some of which just slapped down an oppose and never came back or gave instructions) caused this FAC to be closed and archived. I recommend a full overall of the FAC system if we are to get FACs on the front page or even just approved. We need people who are willing to stick around, give instructions, feedback and others. We have those people now, but they are few and far between and they deserve all the credit we can give them. It is the ones that slap down an oppose and disappear without instructions or feedback or don't respond after days on end, those are the ones that responsible for this FAC being closed. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. This is what turns people off of the hard work it takes to get an article up to FA snuff, why bother if no one is going to be there at your FAC. Pathetic.
I recommend this FAC be reopened, a note about the serious backlog of FAC placed on both AN and ANI, get some damned reviewers who are willing to stick around to help around here and keep going, not just give up. </rant> - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Sheffield has been a featured article before, and over the past few weeks I have been looking at how to get it back up to that standard, mainly alone. It is very well referenced and the sections are all suitable, and is supported with other in depth articles. I have addressed many issues concerned about this article, and made several edits which I felt suitable myself. I feel this article is ready if not very close to be a featured article again, and welcome the feedback. -- Jack?!02:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I noticed that the Peer Review is this up. Shouldn't this review be on hold until the review is closed or something? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes, you're right. I was meant to close that, but forgot! I've closed it now, as I feel the issues addressed were minor. I have corrected all possible for now. -- Jack?!03:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review - many concerns re: consistent reference formatting. There's a sampling below, but I'm sure I missed a few. Please use consistent formatting for all references.
Notes are prose, and should be grammatically correct.
Why is Sheffield city Council sometimes italicized and sometimes not? See for example ref 3 vs ref 10
Err...sorry, no. Eds in this case stands for editor(s), and it's necessary to distinguish between the editor and the author. They do have to be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? I can't fix it because I don't know what format you want it in. I am trying to help, but quite frankly editing the article to actually make it meet the FA criteria is the responsibility of the nominator. If you're not sure what I mean, ask and I'll gladly answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edition usually appears after title, not publisher
Use prose publisher instead of URL wherever possible
I'm working on this, though I'm not an expert on citing sources anymore; forgot alot of it. Any help would be appreciated. -- Jack?!23:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the grammar on the first note, but haven't addressed any other issues; given the inconsistencies in citation formatting it's hard to know which format to standardize to. Also, keep in mind that examples given in the above list are likely not the only occurrence of a particular issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done alot of standardising. For example date forms such as 2010-07-17 are now all 17 July 2010. Publishers are all also correct now. -- Jack?!03:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What do the reviewers think of the pictures? I know a new editor has recently added several new images, which makes the article look better in my opinion. I think the only image that needs to be changed is the one of Sheffield Station, which I may be able to take a new one of soon. -- Jack?!13:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the station photo looks good - it's up to date and it's nice to have a couple of night photos. One thing that definitely needs changing though is the big photo(s) in the infobox. not very representative at all! Over than that, the only problem I can see with the images is that there's never many people in them! St BC (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It's been over a decade since he passed away, and I am nominating Tupac Shakur's Wikipedia article for featured status. Here are some logical reasons why you should support me:
Detailed and well written. Easy to follow along.
It's neutral and has links to statements of opinions that people have made.
It is composed entirely from verifiable information and is absolutely fully referenced. There's not a single missing citation.
Not too long, not too short. The intro is a good summary. A reasonable number of images, all of which are sourced.
Covers a very notable topic (a man widely considered as the greatest and most influential rapper of all time) and is an excellent educational source for someone whose interested in learning more about 2pac.
Those are some of my reasons, but the main one is the fact that this article meets all of Wikipedia's FA criteria. I hope that others are going to agree with me. McYel (talk) 00:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose This will get summarily removed by the coordinators, as it is a driveby nom, but there are several problems just from a quick glance
Lead is too short
Rap career section entirely unsourced
Random blogspots and wordpress used
Unformatted references everywhere
I'm sure someone who follows rap (I don't at all) will probably find content problems as well
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets all the featured article criteria. Please feel free to make any suggestions or criticisms that you think are appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What's Unseen64 and insert credit and are they reliable? I note a couple of instances of the not-always-reliable Joystiq and Kotaku also. Are these replaceable? bridies (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Kotaku ref. The Joystiq ref is actually a primary source, since it reproduces Thompson's letter in full. insert credit is of unknown reliability (which is to say, it hasn't been discussed), but the contributing author, Tim Rogers, is a well-known New Games Journalist, who provides a unique perspective not found in other reviews. Unseen 64 also provides primary sources in the sense that they compile pre-release/beta screenshots into one central location. I'm not citing the article, but the screenshots found in the article. But, if you still have an objection to it, I'm not particularly attached to that bit of information. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering more whether it's acceptable to trust Joystiq to republish the letter faithfully, seeing as it's an issue of controversy, but I suppose that's a bit of a stretch. If Roger's himself is reliable that's fine. I don't have a strong opinion either way on the screenshots. I'd review further but it seems this will have to wait until .hack is done. bridies (talk) 05:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per criterion three:
File:Killer7boxnew.jpg - Needs a detailed and specific rationale per NFCC#10C AND WP:FURG. Of course an image "add[s] a visual description"; that's a function, not purpose. What contribution does such a description make to a reader's understanding? (I'm not saying it does or doesn't; I'm saying it needs to be articulated.) Needs to attribute copyright holder (NFCC#10C).
File:Killer7screen.jpg - Same issue. How is this specific with boilerplate nonsense like "or a closely related article"?
File:Killer7OriginalSoundTrack.jpg - No source (!) (WP:IUP/NFCC#6/NFCC#10A). No rationale (!) (NFCC#10A). Not Low resolution (NFCC#3B). All moot, as it appears to fail NFCC#8: what is the significant contribution? Do we really believe that a reader, after seeing this above and the "Soundtrack" header would be unable to determine that they've reached the correct article? What meaning or significance does the box art have?Эlcobbolatalk15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the soundtrack cover, since it's not terribly interesting or helpful. I added more specific FUR. Is that what you're looking for? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I only just recently learned of this rule. Ordinarily, I'd just accept it and let it pass but under the circumstances, I was wondering if you could bend the rules a bit this time. It's summer, so I'm basically a full-time editor. The rule was originally implemented because they feared that more than one nomination would split the nominator's time and effort, preventing them from fully addressing any objections. However, since I have so much free time, this is basically all I do. If it appears that the quality of my work is suffering, then I will gladly withdraw one FAC, but could you at least give me a chance first? Thanks, Axem Titanium (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of whether or not major contributors have the time/ability to run two nominations at once, but whether the limited number of capable editors willing to review FACs can handle it. Neither of the articles have received !support from reviewers, and while answering comments/questions in a timely manner certainly helps during the FAC process, double the nominations sucks double the reviewer resources. You can always renominate. María(habla conmigo) 13:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone, today I bring to your attention this article on "Slug". No, not the gastropod. This is an article about a song by the group Passengers (U2 and Brian Eno) that is virtually unknown, even to fans of both artists. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria. I am aware that it is very short, but I hope that you will not let that prejudice you; it may be short, but it is as comprehensive as I believe it is possible for this article to be.
I have combed through all of my available print resources (which is a fairly large amount), and have done numerous web searches including the usual websites for music articles, Google News/Archives/Books, and several online databases; all I have left untouched is the occassional random blog on the subject. Despite the lack of resources to work with, I am confident that I have crafted an article which meets all of the FA criteria. I hope that you enjoy the article, and I look forward to your feedback. Melicans (talk, contributions) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the intro "Passengers" and "Original Soundtracks 1" are wikilinked to the same page. The article makes it clear that Passengers only produced one album, however I think that if this article was to be featured on the main page, the band and the album at least deserve their own pages, even if they are both stubs. WackyWaceyou talkin' to me?18:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's something I've been planning on working on when I have the free time to do so. A lot of the material that could be included is in the OS1 anŀd U2 articles, though there are many more details that could be included. I am hesitant to rush out an article cobbled together with the details from both articles just for the sake of it having it's own page; I'd rather wait until I've tinkered around with it in my sandbox to the degree where having a seperate article would be worthwhile. Melicans (talk, contributions) 18:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - After checking WP:NSONG, a song article should be about Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. The lead doesn't tell me why this song is notable and in your nomination you describe this song as virtually unknown; I looked at the list of other FA song articles and randomly chose one, Hey Baby (No Doubt song), which told me it peaked at #5 on Billboard's top 100 and won a Grammy. This probably should have been flagged in your GA review; according to the standards, songs which are not notable should be deleted and merged with an album article. I think you should withdraw the nomination. Kirk (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First sentence. A song recorded by several notable artists (Brian Eno and U2) more than passes GNG and NSONG. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢16:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG also states a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. This article is well beyond Stub-class, and I believe that it is "reasonably detailed". Despite the relatively few amount of sources, there is a great deal of information in the article about the song; far too much for it to be merged into Original Soundtracks 1 without suffering from a loss of content. I also note that this is a recording by several notable artists, namely U2 and Brian Eno. Charting should not be the only criteria for a song to have an article; so long as it is "reasonably detailed", which this is, an article can and should exist. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the GA reviewer, I did consider the article's notability and determined that, given a similar treatment for the other songs on the album, it could be unreasonable for that article to host the independent coverage of this song. While my personal views differ in that I prefer longer parent articles to the content being spread all over the shop, its existence does seem justified as far as policy goes. With that issue put aside, whether it can be a featured article is for you lot to decide. :-) SteveT • C18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We Are the World is an example of a featured article about a song independently released as a recording by several notable artists, I don't see the comparison. Brian Eno and U2 either produced or co-produced multiple albums for the band, they certainly were the same creative team for a long time, and I supposed one could make an argument that this song was notable as part of their decades-long collaboration for some reason, but you haven't bothered to do so. Miss Sarajevo charted and I suppose merits its own article, Your Blue Room also should be merged back into the album page along with this one. There's plenty of other things wrong with this article which we shouldn't have to slog through in a FAC review if it doesn't need to exist. Kirk (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand and appreciate if you feel that the article is not ready for FAC; that is a normal part of the article building process that occurs from time to time. However I'm afraid that I simply can't see the rationale for deleting it altogether; it meets the NSONG guidelines per my interpretation of them (and seemingly the interpretations of Steve and Floydian as well). I believe that there is enough information and detail on the song in this article that it warrants existence. Merging or deleting it would be harmful in that effect, not beneficial.
I should clarify regarding the sources; while I have exhausted all of the sources that I have found and have access to, it is entirely possible that there is more information out there that can be used. I do not own every book about U2, and so there are very likely publications which discuss this song further which are not available on any type of preview through Google Books. Let us not forget that this song was released fifteen years ago, before the real advent of the internet age. Generally speaking, it seems to me that while there is a wealth of information available on pretty much any English-song from the beginning of this decade onwards. It is difficult to find information prior to this period unless the material in question was very popular or often discussed (think "Imagine" or the previously mentioned "We are the World"). Some of this information was transcribed to the internet but later removed for various reasons; I need to look no further than the relatively recent revamps of Billboard and Rolling Stone, which destroyed old charting records and removed several articles and album reviews (including the one for Original Soundtracks 1) respectively. That the information is not present online so far as I have been able to discover does not mean that it does not exist. I am still trying my utmost hardest to find as much information as I possibly can, using every search term that I can think of. And sometimes I do still manage to strike lucky.
I will close out this response by noting that I may still withdraw this nomination, as you first encouraged, but I would like some more feedback from other uninvolved editors before deciding to take that step. Merging or deletion is, in my humble opinion, entirely the wrong step. Even if this article does not currently meet the FAC criteria in your determination, that is no reason to believe that it should be removed altogether. So far as I can gather it meets the guidelines at NSONG, for the reasons I have previously stated. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not an FA criterion. If there are concerns that this warrants an entire article, an RfC or AfD may need to be started. Reviewers should instead be reviewing based on the criteria - comprehensiveness, sourcing, images, prose, MOS. Karanacs (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can word my concerns in terms of the criteria. 1b, the lead mentions briefly why the album was notable (U2 & Eno; critical reception) but the body doesn't explain what Eno specifically did on this song or how he went from being a producer to a musician and the song doesn't appear to me to have been particularly critically acclaimed (it wasn't popular with fans according to the survey and won no awards). Someone in the merger comments mentioned it was played at live shows by U2; that section is missing from the article. I also don't think the article accurately describes the group - Miss Sarajevo describe Passengers as a pseudonym for U2 and not a separate group & the songs are considered part of U2.
You are mistaken over the live performances. "Slug" was never performed live, but "Your Blue Room" was; you included the articles on both in the merger request, hence your confusion over that I suspect. The articles on "Miss Sarajevo", "Your Blue Room", and OS1 are all out of date and have not been worked on in a cohesive manner since their inception. I've quadruple-checked all of my sources and I can say with certainty that the information in this article is correct. This FAC is on "Slug", not the other three, and their innacurracies should have absolutely no bearing on the review of this article. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No performance is listed in U2 Live: A Concert Documentary by Pimm Jal de la Parra, which covers live performances up to the end of the Elevation Tour. Everything from the Vertigo Tour onwards is listed on U2.com, and there is no record of a performance of "Slug" on there. Delving into other, less reliable sources, there is no record of it on U2Gigs.com, which covers every known performance since the band's inception; yes, it's a fansite, but ironically enough the band themselves cited it in the liner notes of some editions of No Line on the Horizon. If you think it's important enough to add and can think of a way to cite something that didn't happen, then please be my guest and enter it into the article, because I have not been able to think of any way to do it. Saying that it was never played is one thing; finding a way to cite that is quite another. It was left out for that reason. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2a, the lead doesn't accurately summarize the details of the critical reception and popularity; in my opinion, lack there of. For a song that wasn't very popular with fans one would think there would be a fair amount of negative press too (1d bias?).
If you can find negative press, please add it to the article. I do not write articles in a biased manner; I put in every detail and aspect that I can find, regardless of whether it is positive or negative. None of the reviews that I found described the track in a negative manner. And I would suggest that it isn't so much "Slug" being unpopular as it is that "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" - both of which have been included on at least two other releases - are the only two songs from the album that most casual fans have heard, given it's releative obscurity. That it is the third most popular song on each of the surveys, and the extremely high proportion of votes for "no preference" in 2010 (the only year that option was available) seems to support that. However since both of our conclusions constitute original research, naturally neither can be included in the article. And for what it is worth, both of my previous FAs only include a brief mention of reception in the lead; it is, after all, only a brief summary, and not every single detail needs to be included. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought 'No idea' was 3rd...anways, that survey is a primary source, which is highlighting why you shouldn't use them in articles; we can't agree what it means with no article about the objective analysis of @U2 fan surveys. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'No preference' was the third ranked selection in 2010 only, but 'no preference' is not a song. I said that it was the third ranked song on the list in each of those years, which is both correct and verifiable. Delving into why the exact percentage was so low in comparison to "Your Blue Room" and "Miss Sarajevo" is a little bit nitpicky, and bordering on original research in my opinion. It's our job to report the facts; not to analyze them. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1c footnote 6 is missing a reference in the bibliography, and 13 - 17 don't seem to be to me from a reliable source (an unofficial fan site).
Footnote 6 was removed in error after the FAC began due to my own poor eyesight in response to the source comments by Brianboulton below, and it has now been reinstated. References 13-17, the survey, were conducted by Matt McGee, an author well known to U2 related subjects for the book U2: A Diary, which chronicles the life of the band dating from the 1970s to 2009 and is heavily used on many U2 articles on Wikipedia (particularly Timeline of U2). Atu2/@U2 (however you prefer to write it) was also the media partner for the inaugural U2 Conference last year, which was supported by the band. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think most FA reviewers would like to see more than 17 references and 2 bibliography items in a FA, and the article is rather short & as I've explained I think the article could have more sources and be longer. Melicans mentioned above some of my objections could be resolved with more research with sources that are currently unavailable, further emphasizing a problem with 1b. I would gather the best approach would be to withdraw the FAC to spend the requisite time to make the article more complete or as I recommended, merging the article into the album. Kirk (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So long as it is comprehensive, 17 inline citations and 3 bibliography items should be enough. Hurricane Irene (2005) (promoted in 2006, FAR in 2008) has only nine inline citations and no items under a bibliography. New York State Route 373 (promoted August 2008) has just 22 inline citations, and again nothing for a bibliography. Nico Ditch (promoted February 2009) has just 16 inline citations, of which almost half are drawn from the same two sources (Nevell 1992 and Nevell 1998). 2005 Azores subtropical storm (promoted August 2008) has only 11 inline citations, and (yet again) nothing for a Bibliography. Length ≠ comprehensiveness; they are two entirely different things. There have been very short FAs before, and there will continue to be short FAs in this future.
This article may not be the longest in existence, but I can assure you that it is comprehensive. As I said before, I can appreciate if you believe this article does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:WIAFA, but I would like the feedback of one or two more uninvolved editors to get additional feedback on the matter before taking the step of withdrawal. Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read some of those other reviews and the discussion was pretty similar; its not about length its about comprehensiveness and short length in those cases was a warning about a lack of comprehensiveness which was addressed in their reviews; I keep mentioning specific things missing from the article that aren't being fixed to my satisfaction. Kirk (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I have missed any specific suggestions, but the only points that I have really seen brought up are that the article is too short in length and that the other related articles say something different from this one. If you have any specific suggestions on how I can improve this one (such as how I can source that it was never played live), can you please reiterate them? It's late, I'm tired, and I'm afraid that I'm just missing any actionable points that you have brought up. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: There are no citations to the U2 by U book listed in the bibliography. This should be listed separately as further reading, rather than including it with the references. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken Kirk's advice under consideration and, after doing some more searches and editing of the article, have to conclude that it probably isn't ready for FAC. In light of that, I withdraw this nomination, but maintain that a merger would be unwise and unhelpful. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it has gone through two separate peer reviews, one from the WP:VG community (link) and one from the Wikipedia community at large (link). I believe it represents featured article quality work. Comments and criticism welcome. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm requesting this FAC be speedy closed as while the article has improved greatly over the course of the recent PRs (both WikiProject and general), it has not gone through reassement to make certain it meets most (if almost any) of the FAC criteria as it remains a start class article that has not been properly assessed on either WikiProject.陣内Jinnai15:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real opinion on whether the article meets the FA criteria or not, but an article doesn't have to be assessed by a WikiProject in order to be at FAC. The article is clearly no longer start-class, and the fact that no WikiProject has changed the tag on the talk page doesn't make that any less true. Just my $0.02. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was an improper jumping chain here as it went straight from a merger to a PR with some items unresolved, some of which, like prose quality and weight issues unresolved (just the 2 examples i can think of off the top of my head) are feature article criteria. That's why I'm stating that it should be.陣内Jinnai15:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is a perfectly reasonable rationale for your opposition to promotion. Having only glanced at the article, I can't say whether it's true or not, but a FAC review will definitely reveal the article's flaws. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go down the list:
well-written: at least, I think so. That's for the FAC reviewers to decide. If you can name any specific instances of less than brilliant prose, please bring them up.
Mentioned a few already and to be frank, the person who writes the prose should never be the one who decides ultimately if its fine without a thorough copyedit review. I would hold this standard even if you were a copy editor because its hard to see your own mistakes.陣内Jinnai16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you have provided zero examples of unclear prose. In fact, I had a friend of mine (who does not have a Wikipedia account) copy edit the entire article as well and I've incorporated those changes. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comprehensive: it follows the structure of most video game FAs with complete coverage
The plot section should be trimmed as it gets kind of long. I admit it is 4 video games, but that is still a lengthy prose. That's why i said this fails #1 and in addition #2.陣内Jinnai16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I included references for scores for Infection and Quarantine. GameStats also has Mutation's Famitsu scores, but I didn't feel it was necessary to list them for all the games, since it's just an unqualified number. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
neutral: again, I am of the opinion that it is, but please point out anything you notice
The Fragment section was mentioned by multiple reviewers as being inappropriate for this article as more than a summary statement. An alternative was also mentioned by myself.陣内Jinnai16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One reviewer objected to the merge and couldn't come up with a convincing reason why, after multiple inquiries. As the article stands now, the mention of fragment IS just a summary, because that's all there is. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
stable: I'm the only editor working on this article and I've strived to respond to all criticisms at PR and FAC. I felt that the PR discussions were getting mired in WP:POINTy behavior so I took it to FAC to get a wider opinion on the quality of the article, as well as move it along the improvement process
FAC is the next step in article evolution. Very few articles enter FAC fully grow as FAs. Rather, reviewers point out issues with the article (much like peer review) and help it improve and ultimately decide whether it's good enough to be FA at the end. As for closing the peer review, as the nominator, I felt that my concerns were addressed and I felt ready to take the article to FAC, which is a legitimate course of action, according to WP:PR#How to remove a request. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a lead: it has one; reviewers can tell me if it's good or not
The fair use rationale for that image is perfectly legitimate and there are no "one-word statements" in it, aside from "portion used" and "low resolution", which are supposed to be answered that way. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my own assessment, I think it's ready to undergo the FAC process. If you have any specific and actionable objections, please bring them up. Otherwise, allow the FAC process to continue in peace. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many points here that FAC is not the place to hammer these issues out. FAC is where one goes once most of those have been dealt with. The move here from the PR could be considered just as WP:POINTy, if not moreso, as the claims made about PR issues raised.陣内Jinnai16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, FAC is a process. Take a look at some of the other current candidates. How many of them consist solely of "supports" with no suggestions at all for improvement? FAC is where an article undergoes the final touches to become an FA. More often than not, the article is almost, but not quite FA quality at the start of FAC but attains that by the end. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is not the place where you bring a medicore article to get help on various issues; only ones that are already quality articles. This article needs far more than just "final touches".陣内Jinnai14:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is one editor's viewpoint and he/she is entitled to it. Requesting withdrawal is appropriate in cases where an article comes here in a clearly unprepared state. This article may or may not be close to meeting the FA criteria, but it has not come here unprepared; it received a pretty detailed peer review from Finetooth, who is one of our most experienced reviewers. I have no view yet about the article's merits, but I think this is a good faith nomination, and it should be allowed to ride a while. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review:
Refs 6, 47 and 48: Gamespot.com is the website name; publisher is CBS Interactive Inc
Refs 34, 36, 38 and 40: GameRanking is the website name; publisher is again CBS Interactive Inc
The same publisher is responsible for the Metacritic site, refs 35, 27, 39 and 41.
Publisher information should also be given for Gamespot.co, 1up.com and Gamestats.
Ref 60 appears to be in Japanese.
It is not clear what information is being cited to Tokyopop, nor why this is considered a reliable source. It appears to consist of a blog for registered users.
All fixed. The Tokyopop citation is for the "Synopsis" panel on the right hand side. It's a little hard to see, but that is the official page. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not much of a reviewer, so I'll just point out problems I see without supporting or opposing.
I already knew about the games, so I know what's up, but I don't think the first paragraph of the lead adequately explains that the game has a game inside it that the characters are playing.
You might want to mention in the lead that //sign was an anime series and the first element of the franchise, rather than rely soley on readers clicking the link
"the resulting area may have a varying level, element" - you haven't explained yet what level or element means in this context
Both development and reception need to be longer. I know Development is hard to do for Japanese games, but for an article on four games I would expect a much longer reception. Like, a short paragraph or half-paragraph on each one + one on the series as a whole.
Thanks for your comments. I made a few changes based on your first few points, but for your last point, I don't think those two sections can get any longer. I read a LOT of reviews for the games but they all seem to say approximately the same thing for each game. I've covered all the points that they make but to be honest, there isn't much else to say. As for development, I only found one article that even remotely resembled development info. I hope this doesn't become a sticking point, because especially for lesser known games like this, the development info simply doesn't exist or get published since it's not a big blockbuster release like Halo or Final Fantasy. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The inestimable Brianboulton asked me for my comments, so here I am.
I'm not sure about the use of "One" throughout, such as "One may..." Going from "The player" (a singled out subject) to "One" (a more general term) seems a tad incongruous. I think perhaps changing mentions to plural (players) will allow greater nonspecific subjects (their, et al) and less repetitious phrasing in areas.
I feel like in terms of comprehensiveness, there needs to be more information on development and reception. Can we get at least a paragraph for each game's reception, since I'm assuming there's no good sources summarizing how the series has been received overall.
Having combed through more reviews of these games that I'd like to admit, I don't think there's much else to say. I don't know how familiar you are with the games, but all four of them are literally identical so reviews of each game will mostly cover the same points. The few times that improvements were made between games has been noted in the reception section. Also, I'd like to expand the development section, but I don't think there are any more reliable sources out there. If you find any, please let me know. I'd really appreciate it. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's some choppy prose, but they're fairly minor spots... I'll see about dealing with them myself.
Question/comment – Is there a reason why the first paragraph in the lead has an inline citation, since I see no quotations around? Perhaps I'm being a consistency nit, but if the other two paragraphs do not have inline citations (not counting quotations), then the first should not. The stuff in the first paragraph should be mentioned in the article body with the citation moved from the lead to the body.More comments on the rest of the article to come once I get a little time to comb over the article. –MuZemike20:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's there because that's the only time Liminality is mentioned in the article so the citation can't go elsewhere. Do you have a better place for it? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I have moved this article through the stages on Wikipedia (GA and Peer Review) and would like to take the next step in the process, or find out what else needs to be done. OrlandKurtenbach (as one of the most recent hockey editors to usher an article through FAC) has also taken a gander and offered his input. Filatov is a young hockey player, but quite accomplished and has had an interesting career path. Thanks in advance for any reviews and advice. Canada Hky (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed correct, but we do have a rule that, "its content does not change significantly from day to day", and I am interested in how the nominator (or anyone else) feels that this component of the FA criteria is met Fasach Nua (talk) 09:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article certainly has not reached an 'end point', but I think it is consistent from 'day to day'. Hockey player articles are not updated with stats on a game by game basis (only at the end of the season), and the body of the article about his career hits highlights and summarizes a season or event as opposed to giving a play by play. For much of the year, I would expect very minor changes (if any), and then an update at the end of the season or event. Canada Hky (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this article is promoted, and the article subsequently changes significantly over time due to ongoing events, at what stage would this article be sufficiently dis-similar to the one reviewed today that this FAC process becomes irrelevant? 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
That's tough to say. It involves a lot of predicting. Filatov could come over for a training camp, get cut, head back to Russia for good and toil in relative anonymity for 10 years before retiring. Aside from stat updates, and a cursory update each year, the article would be quite static. Or he could come over and completely rip it up, becoming a target for vandals and breaking so many records the page requires constant updating. I think the actual reality is somewhere in the middle. He'll have a career much like most NHLers, and while the article will expand as his career progresses, I don't think it will do so at a pace where it is impossible to maintain FA standards, including for stability. Canada Hky (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are tricky. Generally, for opinions or rumours I would avoid them, or move to the primary source they are citing, but as basically a straight forward interview host in this case, I don't think the concern is the same. I don't think Yahoo!'s reputation is completely garbage. Kyle Woodlief (the subject of the interview) writes a column for USA Today about draft prospects, so I think his opinions are valid, and I don't think the blog has slanted them in any way. I like to evaluate sources on a case by case basis (especially for blogs). If its a tipping point, it could be removed. Canada Hky (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like stated above by YellowMonkey, something about Filatov's playing style. Goal-scorer, playmaker, power forward, defensive forward, etc. He obviously fits in some style, so it should be included.
*"He served as Russia's captain for three separate tournaments." Should sya he served as captain in three seperate tournaments.
In most other FA hockey articles, the personal life section (and related sections) goes before the playing career section. Consider moving it, but its not a big deal.
However in that regard, does he have any siblings, or an only child? Seems like something that should be added.
Super League in the Junior section should have a link to Russian Superleague.
Should mention that the Crunch are a minor league affiliate of the Blue Jackets, as non-hockey readers would not understand why he would play there.
"In his shortened season in Russia, Filatov played 26 games, scoring nine goals and adding 13 assists." In regards to the numbers, it's best not to mix them; either use all numbers, or write them all out. I'd simply just write the 9 here. I haven't looked at any other examples, but if there are, consistency is best.
International play on hockey articles usuall gets a level 2 heading.
Russia won a gold medal in that tournament; Filatov contributed four goals and five assists in seven games, as an underaged player in the tournament." Should change the word order to something like: "an underaged player, Filatov contributed..."
"Filatov made a second appearance at the Under-18 World Championships the following season. The 2008 U18 Championship was held in Russia." Can be combined into one sentence: "Filatov made a second appearance the follwing season at the 2008 championship held in Russia."
Ottawa, Ontario, and Saskatchewan are linked in regards to host locations for tournaments, while nothing else is. In regars to consistency, I wouldn't bother with any of them.
I would consider linking to the other national teams mentioned (US, Finland, etc)
My placement of the Personal Life section kind of depends on what's in it. If it has minor hockey info or stuff like that, I place it at the beginning, if it is strictly off-ice and family, I leave it at the end. I can change it if its a big deal, that's just my reasoning for placement at the end.
Can't find any references to siblings, nor anything stating that he is an only child, so I have just left it out entirely.
Linked Super League.
Added mention of affiliation w/ Crunch.
Fixed numbers
Added level 2 heading.
Added link to junior team, did not add link to men's national ice hockey team, as Filatov has never played at the senior level.
Fixed both issues regarding wording in international section.
I am still working on the playing style section, as most of the google hits I am finding that discuss his style are from message boards or Hockey's Future, which I don't like to rely on. I'll keep looking. Canada Hky (talk) 15:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some additional playing style material, both in the section about the draft, and the section about his return to Russia. Canada Hky (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
A one-paragraph lead is rather thin for an article of this size. I don't think it actually needs too much expansion, but enough to get it to two decent-sized paras would be welcome.
Junior: "Filatov was the top-ranked European skater by the NHL's Central Scouting Bureau during both their mid-term and final rankings." "during" → "in"? I don't think you can say something was during a ranking.
I was going to ask if reference 6 had a little more detail on what Filatov's defensive weaknesses were, but the link isn't showing up.
Professional: Non-breaking spaces are needed for dollar amounts like this: $1.35 million. Annoying task, but it should still be done.
"playing for the Blue Jackets American Hockey League affiliate Syracuse Crunch." Grammar needs some work here; perhaps try "playing for the Blue Jackets' American Hockey League affiliate, the Syracuse Crunch."
International play: No need for another IIHF link, since there's already one in the prior section.
"Filatov made a second appearance at the 2008 U18 Championship". He couldn't have made multiple appearances at the same event in this context. Optimally it would be "at the U18 Championship in 2008", but that would leave a so-called easter egg link for 2008. Maybe all of that proposed bit should be linked to avoid this.
"at the 2008 World Junior Championship, which were held in the Czech Republic." "were" → "was" for proper tense.
What makes Russian Prospects (reference 1) a reliable source? Also, I will note that there's another reference to the Yahoo blog Brianboulton questioned earlier, by a different author.
Reference 10 shouldn't have part of the title in all capital letters.
Several IIHF references (24, 26, 30, and 33) should have indications that they are in PDF format. This can be accomplished with the format= parameter of the cite templates.Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Giants2008 comments - Thanks for the review!
Tried to bulk it up, and split off the international material into a second paragraph.
Fixed.
Fixed the url in the reference, and it doesn't really say much more. Here's the relevant section "No one suggested the Filatov had a game anywhere near as well-rounded as Stamkos, though. Ask them questions about Filatov's play away from the puck and you'd hear a few mumbled "Well, you knows" and then it would be back to a breathless description of an outside-inside move that left a defender scrambling for his jock strap and a flustered goalie fishing the puck out of his net." It conflicts with some of the other scouting reports, but I kind of think that is the nature of the beast with scouting reports, especially of young players.
Fixed, as I think there was just the one incidence.
Fixed.
Delinked IIHF, I am never sure if it is once per section, or once per article.
Simplified the sentence, hopefully that works.
The 'About Us' section on the webpage says they have been recognized by several media outlets for their coverage of Russian Prospects, including NHL.com, FoxSports, Rogers. http://www.russianprospects.com/public/aboutus.php Regarding the blog - again, its an interview not an opinion, so I treated it the same as the first blog reference.
I am nominating this for featured article because i have been working on this article for a very long time, I was promoted to GA class a couple of months ago and now I think its time for FA class. الله أكبرMohammad Adil18:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry guys, not quite sure how I got those two confused. Time to call it a day. I'll do penance by doing a proper review of this article in the next couple of days. Nev1 (talk) 01:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Why is there an Arabic- but not a Greek-alphabet form of the name in the lead? Why is there an apostrophe in "O' Syria"? And quotes of two lines do not need to go into a blockquote. Ucucha19:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the problem with quotation (removing blockquote), as for the greek alphabets, as a matter of fact i cant speak greek if you can, feel free to add, or i can expect it from any other user who speaks/writes greek, to add those alphabets in the lead along side arabic.
The Greek form would be Ἱερομυαξ (assuming the Greek name currently given in the article is correct), but you should confirm that this is correct. Ucucha16:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the last sentence, shouldn't that be "battles" and "the modern world"? Were the mistakes in the quote itself? - Dank (push to talk) 02:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably "Akram, A.I" and "Akram, Agha Ibrahim" are the same person. A consistent format should be used.
There is a reference in the Notes to "Haldon 2008", but no such book appears in the bibliography.
Citations are to "Runciman 1991" but the biblography only gives "Runciman 1987"
Both the Treadgold notes are to Treadgold 1997. Another Treadgold book, published 1998, appears in the bibliography. If this is not a cited work, it should be listed separately under "Further reading".
I am dubious about the section headed "Notes". For example, why do you need to cite so many different estimates of the sizes of the Roman and Muslim armies?
Can you comment on this ?
Many of the notes from (g) onwards contain information which ought to be cited to a source.
Other notes are incomprehensible, e.g. "Runciman expresses in his book the following to have been said in an agonising and bitter cry" (to what does "the following" refer), and " Concepts used in the description of the battle lines of the Muslims and the Byzantines. See image." (Which image?)
I have worked on above mentioned issues with the references section, and have removed unnecessary statements and have corrected the pp and p formatting.
Citations include "Akram 2004", "Akram 1975" and "Akram 2003". Bibliography only has Akram 2009 and Akram 2004.
Corrected.
I am dubious about the section headed "Notes". For example, why do you need to cite so many different estimates of the sizes of the Roman and Muslim armies?
It was due to edit war in past, now i have trimmed it down to only those author's who's work has been used as a source in compiling this article.
Many of the notes from (g) onwards contain information which ought to be cited to a source.
All of them now have a reference to a source book or article.
Other notes are incomprehensible, e.g. "Runciman expresses in his book the following to have been said in an agonising and bitter cry" (to what does "the following" refer)
It has been deleted.
Concepts used in the description of the battle lines of the Muslims and the Byzantines. See image." (Which image?)
The infobox gives modern estimates on casualties and figures from original sources for the Byzantines and Ghassanids (a good idea), but not the Rashidun. Why not?
In the plans showing the different phases of the battle (an interesting illustration and a good idea), shouldn’t the pale grey blocks representing the cavalry reserve be coloured for the appropriate army (ie: pale blue or pale red)?
The content of Nicole 1994 seems to start at page 7 (cf. [12]), the previous pages seeming to be the usual information about publishers etc. So I'm wondering what is said on page 1 that is used in reference 6 and on page 4 as used in reference 16. While page 1 isn't in the Google books preview, page 4 is and it appears to contain just details on publishing and copyright.
According to Nicole 1994, p 14, it seems that it was the Riddah Wars that resulted in the creation of a Muslim state encompassing the Arabian peninsula. This contrasts somewhat with the claim that by 630 Mohammad "he had successfully united most of the Arabia under a single political authority", referenced to the same book.
"just a march away from Aleppo": a march is quite vague, is there something more specific?
A preview of Heraclius: Emperor of Byzantium is available on Google books. I don't see how the material on page 134 supports the statement sourced to reference 33 that "This was a strong defensive position and these manoeuvres pitted the Muslims and Byzantines into a decisive battle, one which the latter they had tried to avoid"
There's similar problem for reference 38. I don't see talk of figures on page 131 of Kaegi's book to support "Most early Muslim accounts place the size of the Muslim forces between 24,000 and 40,000 and the number of Byzantine forces between 100,000 and 200,000. Modern estimates of the sizes of the respective armies vary: estimates for the Byzantine army are mostly between 80,000 and 120,000, with some estimates as low as 50,000 and 15,000–20,000."
Reference 75 (Kaegi 2003, 136) is used to support "Jonah, the Greek informant of the Rashidun army during the Conquest of Damascus died in this battle. The Muslims took no prisoners in this battle, although they may have captured some during the subsequent pursuit". I believe page 136 of the source referenced is actually talking about the Siege of Constantinople (626). The preview for this book is limited, and many of the references fall in parts that are not included in the Google preview, however the above three examples (and the problems with Nicole) are enough for concern. I can't see the index, but it is puzzling that searching Kaegi's book for "Yarmouk" returns only one result.
Bibliographic details for the books by Akram (1970), Baladhuri, Chandler, Ghawanma (1985), Kindersley, Mango, Norwich (1989), and Wilson Cash (2007) mentioned in the notes section are missing. It would also be a good idea to provide the page numbers on which the estimates are given for each volume. Nev1 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns are quite genuine, in fact they are sort of my funny mistake, i by mistake, had titled both Kaegi's book as "Kaegi 2003". All the references dealing with pages between 121-140 were of Kaegi's 1995 book Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests and by mistake i had tagged all the references to Kaegi's book Heraclius: emperor of Byzantium (2003 edition).
Any ways i have corrected them all now, you can cross check them. As for Nicolle's references, they were different from the google's version because i had used the "Yarmouk 636, muslim conquest of syria" in PDF version, which had different page allocation then that of google book. I have also fixed them now, feel free to cross check.
And yes, dont search in kaegi's books by the name "yarmouk" search by the name "yarmuk" and you will found a thousand results in both books.
Fair enough, getting the year of a particular book muddled can happen (I've done it myself). I'll take a closer look at the article later. One question now though, what is on page 6 of Nicolle's book that is being used as a reference, because it's a map of the region in 634. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Nev1, In the version that i am using, (PDF file), Page 6 starts with the section Origin of the campaign and the map is on page 5. If you wish, give me ur email and I can send you a copy of this book.
Oppose: That David Nicolle, who is liable to such exaggerations when his favs are concerned, puts Khalid ibn al-Walid on such a pedestal ("finest cavalry commanders in history", "one of a great tacticians and cavalry commanders in history") means actually nothing, particularly since the claim comes from an Osprey Publication where the general tone is quite different from standard scholarly sources. In a FA, the main author can be expected to show his equidistance to his references, and his general grasp of the topic, by more carefully filtering such declarations of love, instead of relaying them uncritically to the unsuspecting reader. Sorry, but I am always sceptical of such designations, because they immediately evoke the impression that the article has also been written with the aim in mind to elevate the central figure to its 'deserved' heroical status. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David nicolle is widely considered a reliable source, and i would not call it his "love for Khalid" but his appreciation for his skills. In fact you can search on net, different scholars have high regards for Khalid's skills. I am not sure dis-likeness to a particular author, can be a reason for Opposing any article. Beside nicolle, there are several other authors too, who's work has been used as a reference to this article. Moreover if some sentences sound like hero worship feel free to rephrase them.
I do not doubt that DN conforms to WP:Reliable, but I object to you giving his opinion WP:Undue weight. I do not doubt that Khalid is rated as a commander by historians, but that does not mean that the article should jump to the same crude and predictable "one of the best ever" conclusion, which increasingly infest the military history of this encyclopedia. If he was that good, wouldn't it be more sublime to praise his skills while describing his moves? Along the line "Khalid decide to make a sudden move which surprised the Byzantines" or "Khalid moved his cavalry skillfully around the flank of the enemy". Much more helpful for the reader than this crude hero worship. I remain opposed because this approach makes me lack faith in the overall objectivity of the article. Certainly good for GA, but not good enough for the very highest standard. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no reason to oppose, all the i's appear dotted and the t's crossed. Could maybe benefit from a little fine tuning for the occasional offbeat English use, but otherwise a good article worthy of an FA star. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@user gun powder
if you feel that at some points the tone of the article is too bias towards khalid's skills, then help by fixing them.
I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it now meets the FA criteria. This is a work of art from Lycia, an area whose history and culture is currently not well covered in Wikipedia, hopefully this article will encourage more and fill in some of the redlinks. SpinningSpark13:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—no dab links, no dead external links, but please proofread the article; I noticed a comma splice ("The Lycian language is not Greek, it is related ...") and a typo (visisted) in the first few paragraphs. Ucucha18:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments
Cites 20 and 32 need page #s.
References need place of publication
If an ISBN isn't available then an OCLC # or somesuch should be provided.
Titles of references should be capitalized as per MOS
This is now all dealt with except for cite 32 which is intended to reference the entire book and thus does not need page numbers. The reason that Fellows' publications were not capitalised was that I was treating them as individual articles rather than books, they were also in quotes rather than italics for the same reason. Not sure that I can entirely justify this so I have complied with the request. SpinningSpark18:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't find one place in his book referencing that statement? The whole book is a bit broad, IMO, but I'm not going to worry about it too much.
You misunderstand, the reference is the book which led to the British Museum commissioning Fellows. The whole book describes Fellows' travels in Lycia. SpinningSpark19:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments beginning a read-through now and will make straightforward copyedits as I go. Please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning. I'll jot queries below: Casliber (talk·contribs) 15:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just scanned the lead and it could do with a copyedit. I need to sleep now so will look tomorrow some time, but you need to reduce the repetition of common words. I am not sure this is do-able in the time frame here. I think running this through GAN might have been prudent. I'll continue with some specifics below.
GAN seems pretty gummed up at the moment. At the time, I had four articles stuck in GAN since 22nd May - some are still waiting for reviews now - so I put it through Peer Review instead. SpinningSpark16:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look through some other bits suggests it needs a copyedit throughout and may be one reason why this FAC has been quiet. If you withdraw and ping me when at Peer Review I'll do some more copyediting. I might do a bit more now but have a few things on my plate already (including finishing some more GA reviews :/) Casliber (talk·contribs) 08:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has come a very long way, initially beginning as an article with little information and relatively unsourced trivial information to being an informative, well and structured page. Chloe Sevigny, herself, is becoming more and more recognized as a fine actress and still remains cult icon and one of independent cinema's leading ladies. With her Golden Globe win for her role on Big Love, the subject is becoming even more relevant to today's society. I want to know exactly what can be improved to give the page an FA status. Thanks! Ashton 29 (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current ref # 19, 48, 84 are missing retrieval dates.
Retrieval dates should be consistent, a few are access dates, whereas the others are retrieval dates.
Use italics for publications such as Newsweek.
Some sources show place of publication, i.e., London for The Guardian, but no location for The Los Angeles Times. Be consistent by adding location to those that don't have it, or delete from those that do.
Sources with retrieval dates should be linked to the source > a spot-check of shows that 20, 26, and 27 don't.
Spot check shows author/s missing in at least current refs 28 & 29.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is already a Good Article and has been through many peer reviews prepping it for FAC. Mo-Al (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A number of refs are missing publisher information
Done, though I couldn't ascertain the location of all of the publishers. (Also, this is excepting citation 48 -- the internet archive seems to be having server problems). Mo-Al (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 44: according to the site, 2 is the number of speakers, not 5
Sorry, I should have been clearer. The stuff you just listed is the publisher information. By publication information, I mean volume/issue number and page numbers - the original source is a journal. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the journal on hand, and I can't figure out the publisher location from what's available online...Mo-Al (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Souag: This was from a personal webpage. What would be appropriate to put down under "publisher" and "location"? Mo-Al (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For these and the one above: is the source self-published? If so, the author is the publisher (although I'll warn you that self-published sources are generally discouraged per RS). Is the source hosted by an educational institution? If so, that institution is the publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that makes it clear. I've put the proper info down for Ross and Souag. I've eliminated Peyron since it was not really a necessary source. Mo-Al (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the details! I'll try to go through these. By the way, I've already noticed the issue with some non-functioning bluelinks but I can't figure out what's wrong... help would be appreciated. Mo-Al (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it appears that Wikipedia doesn't like references with |date=n.d. -- from looking at the page source it appears that my bluelinks aren't working because they are anchor links to things like #CITEREFPeyronn.d., while for some reason the references themselves have ids like #CITEREFPeyron2010. Any ideas? Mo-Al (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"consisting entirely of voiceless consonants do not phonetically contain voiced vowels" - I don't think "voiceless consonent" has been explained; should the article read "contain phonetically voiced vowels"? If not, then I do not understand the phrase "phonetically contain voiced vowels".
Better. I've made a couple of other fixes you might want to check. The "free state" thing still needs fixing. A lay reader will not have a clue what either construct state or free state are. You might even look at whether to drop them from the lead if that makes it more accessible. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The standard word order is Verb-Subject-Object (with the subject in construct state) but sometimes Subject-Verb-Object (with the subject in free state)". While a link is provided to "construct state", there is no link nor explanation of "free state". There appears to be no wikipedia article on free state in linguistics. As a lay reader, I'm already lost and need some guidance on what is meant here. One option would be to write a short article on free state so there is something to which the term can link.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: The article seems very comprehensively sources, with even T.S. Eliot's biography in there somewhere. The only issue I could find concerns Harris, John (ed) (2000). This appears to relate to an article in Q magazine, which is a monthly. We need to know in which 2000 issue the article appeared. Otherwise, all sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brianboulton, thanks for your comment. The references are not to Q, the monthly rock magazine, but to a publication entitled: Q Dylan, edited by John Harris, dated October 2000. This was published by Q magazine and EMAP from the the usual editorial address of Q magazine. It was a special issue: all the content was devoted to different facets of Bob Dylan, and it was 148 pages in length. There was no isbn. At this time, in early 2000s, Q magazine published a series of special issues devoted to The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, David Bowie, Pink Floyd, et al. Mick gold (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised that the article includes no sound samples. I see on the Talk page there was a brief discussion around the end of May about introducing some, but the matter was dropped unresolved. For an article on a 77-minute-long album with 24 tracks and a complex production history, it would certainly be appropriate and very helpful to the reader to include a few samples.—DCGeist (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm uncomfortable with both mentions of Woodstock in the third paragraph of the lede - The Band without Dylan's involvement were added to sixteen songs recorded during the Woodstock sessions. Overdubs were added in 1975 to songs from both categories. The Basement Tapes was critically acclaimed upon release, and reached a peak of #7 on the Billboard 200 album chart. However, the album's format has led critics to question the omission of some of Dylan's best-known 1967 compositions and the inclusion of material by The Band that was not recorded in Woodstock. - However nothing was actually recorded in Woodstock because most of the songs were recorded in West Saugerties in the basement at Big Pink, although apparently a few early sessions were held in Dylan's house in Byrdcliffe (which is in Woodstock) but nothing recorded there was used. I think there is an overuse of Woodstock (just as the actual Woodstock concert was in White Lake, New York), because the Basement Tapes were recorded mostly at Big Pink in West Saugerties, which is near Woodstock. By using the more catchy Woodstock You have rootsy stuff not wanting to be rootsy...Modernist (talk) 03:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first "Woodstock" in that graf was my doing—part of a broader copyedit to deal with some awkward phrasing. I've replaced it so it reads "Big Pink sessions". I'll leave it to the nominators to address how best to handle the second occurrence.—DCGeist (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There were probably three locations for recordings: Dylan’s house, named Hi Lo Ha, in Byrdcliffe, Big Pink, and, after vacating Big Pink in October ’67, Helm & Danko moved to a house on Wittenberg Road where more recordings happened. No tape logs exist so what was recorded where is based on speculation and interviews with The Band, particularly Robertson & Hudson. The most detailed account of The Basement Tapes, Griffin’s book Million Dollar Bash, begins with a map of the area showing these three houses within a few miles of each other. Throughout the book, Griffin refers to the Woodstock recordings to differentiate what was recorded in these three houses from recordings in other locations. (The title of The Band’s first album, Music From Big Pink, led many to believe it was recorded there, but it was recorded in a studio in New York.) Take Three of “Nothing was Delivered” was almost certainly recorded in Wittenberg Road, because it features Helm on drums, but Griffin argues that Take One of that song was released on the album. The majority of the recordings probably came from Big Pink but we don’t know for sure. To further complicate things, Howard Sounes’s biography of Dylan, Down The Highway, introduces a fourth location, "the Ohayo Mountain home of Clarence Schmidt", an eccentric retired mason, where Sounes claims some of these recordings were made. (I shall add this point to the article.) In the same vein as Griffin’s book, I would suggest that Woodstock recordings is a useful way to refer to the entire body of work recorded by Dylan and The Band between June and October 1967 (probably). Mick gold (talk) 08:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clarence really didn't have a house but rather he lived inside the mountain, at the top; - great view; surrounded by everything conceivable in the universe from Mobile Gasoline signs to tinfoiled trees; I cannot believe any of these songs were recorded there. They might have all gone up there, they also might have all played up there; but it was very primitive. Although anything was possible I suppose, he might've had a spot up there...Modernist (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Surely it’s not right to flatly state that all the Dylan-Band songs were recorded in Big Pink. We simply don’t know. We do know they were all recorded in (probably four) locations in the Woodstock area between April & October 1967. There are authoritative interviews, in Griffin and in Sounes, which state that songs were recorded at Wittenberg Road and at Clarence Schmidt’s home. I’ve amended lead with this in mind. Mick gold (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I mostly think this is a very good article, except for that Songs and themes section, which is long and unwieldy. A particular problem I have with it is that many of its sub-sections are barely a sentence long, and I doubt a non-Dylan-enthusiast would be interested in the personnel details for every song (a Personnel section at the bottom of the article should suffice). Further, since you have a Themes section that discusses the album's lyrical themes as a whole, the big list of songs is also mostly a redundancy. I wonder if you can transport the section wholesale to the 'List of BT songs' article; the Themes section in this article can subsequently be beefed up to cover all the major info from the erstwhile Songs and themes section. Minor quibbles:
"Consider how much "Odds and Ends" owes to Fats Domino." - quotes within quotes should be in 'single quotation marks'.
if you guys decide to retain the Songs and themes section, is there a way to prevent the songs from showing up on the TOC? The TOC is currently way too long.—indopug (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the song titles were prefaced with a semi-colon(;) rather than being subsections (==*==) they wouldn't show up in the TOC, but would be emboldened. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion, Indopug. I've made it so that the songs are no longer in the TOC. Is this a satisfactory improvement for you? I think Mick gold and I are in agreement that for us the short description of each song is an important part of the article. I think it gives a little flavour of the variety of different songs, and their varied recording history, and I would say that if someone is not a Dylan enthusiast he or she could easily skim over that section. I'm sure in any Wikipedia article there will be readers with varying degrees of interest, and it's normal to expect that there will always be some who get more out of certain details than others—but having details that can be easily skimmed over by those who are less interested without detracting from their overall enjoyment (for example, the personnel information for every song) while still having those details available for those who are interested is, I believe, not a bad thing. If the song descriptions with the personnel info does not bother you too much, we would very much like to keep it. Moisejp (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Moisejp's comments above. Indopug suggests transporting all the sub-sections on individual songs wholesale to the List of Basement Tapes songs, which is a much more basic article - both in its scope and in the quality of the prose. Such a radical revision of The Basement Tapes articles is possible, in our opinion it would be a poorer article, so I'd like to know if that's the clear consensus of the editors reviewing this article. Mick gold (talk) 12:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I would be happy to go with consensus (which is why I am not opposing over the matter). One last thing, I see you have formatted the song titles as '''Goin' to Acapulco'''<br />; it should ideally be ;"Goin' to Acapulco" (lesser code, and song names should be in quotes).—indopug (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the song-by-song analysis is one of the best things about the article, though it certainly was a good idea to remove them from the TOC.—DCGeist (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the song-by-song layout is clunky, awkward, and not the best way of conveying the information in prose. The format is too list-y, and it's jarring that you have another "Themes" section later in the article. On that count, I'd have to state Oppose. This section could use some serious reworking. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WesleyDodds correctly points out that it is jarring to have two sections labelled 'Themes'. The first section is obviously a detailed analysis of the lyrical and musical contents of each song, so it has been re-titled 'Songs'. The 'Themes' section addresses the ways in which various critics have perceived thematic unities in the collection of songs known as The Basement Tapes—from Michael Gray to Greil Marcus. Mick gold (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm a member of wikiproject Bob Dylan, I haven't heard any song on this album, so I wouldn't say I'm a Dylan enthusiast. Having said that I think the song formatting system on this article is brilliant, because the info about each song is easily accessible. Any other way of conveying this info for an album article with so many songs wouldn't make much sense to the reader and so would get lost quite easily. However I also think more info needs to be added about the lesser songs to make this system work, because some sections are too short. Kitchen Roll (Exchange words)21:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having contributed to and reviewed various FA-level album articles, I'm quite convinced the current layout for song information isn't the most effective or elegant way to convey this information. It certainly isn't "brilliant" prose, and could use with some compacting. Also, consider exporting some of the details to articles devoted to the songs themselves. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The writers of this article (Moisejp, I.M.S. and myself) embarked on improving The Basement Tapes after we had taken The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan to FA on May 4, 2010. That article also employed a song-by-song format, so I'm puzzled why this format is said to be neither elegant nor effective to convey information about TBT. Mick gold (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Could somebody, um, reformat the Freewheelin' article to remove the songs from the TOC, like they did here? Thanks,—indopug (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
If I had been around for that FAC, I would've opposed it on the same grounds. The approach is overly cluttered and is inelegant prose writing. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll discuss these as a group. It's clear that the selection was well-considered, and the rationales are good in all three cases. However, I didn't feel the captions were quite up to snuff. Where possible, we want to give the reader an idea of specifically what to listen for in the sample.
The caption for File:Apple Suckling Tree.ogg didn't really do that with the Danko quote, and it made a claim about Marcus's view that I didn't find was well supported by the source. I moved the Danko quote into the narrative, and substituted a quote from Marcus that suggests a couple specific things to listen for.
The caption for File:Open The Door, Homer.ogg was largely composed of a quote from Shelton that actually gives his view of The Basement Tapes as a whole. I substituted Shelton's immediately preceding sentence, which directly addresses "Open the Door, Homer". Still, it doesn't really aid the reader in focusing their attention on what to listen for, and further improvement can probably be made here.
The caption for File:Don't Ya Tell Henry.ogg, which I've left for you untouched, simply does not work. It focuses on a chorus line that is not heard in the sample. One possibility here would be to use Marcus's description from Invisible Empire of Dylan "shouting encouragement through a stuttering horn break, the singing wild ('I was outasight!') and then cool, distant" (p. 243). (That would require sampling the appropriate section of the song, of course.) Or I'm sure you could track down another description that, again, would give the reader a more specific idea of what to listen for.—DCGeist (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, thanks for improving the audio file captions. Your suggestion about using Marcus's comment on "Don't Ya Tell Henry" from Invisible Republic won't work, because it describes the Dylan-Band version which has been released on bootlegs, but not officially. The Band-only version was re-recorded later and appears on The Basement Tapes 1975 album; it has been described as a prototype of the sound The Band would reveal on their albums, so I've articulated this point in a new caption. Mick gold (talk) 07:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, to clarify, you'd like to see the song descriptions like this, with the song titles de-bolded, in quotation marks, and no line break between the song title and the personnel, like this?
"Ruben Remus": Manuel – vocal, piano; Robertson – guitar; Hudson – organ; Danko – bass, backing vocal; Helm – drums. Recorded at Music From Big Pink sessions, 1968.
Engineer Rob Fraboni identified this track as a 1968 recording by The Band. Griffin says the song is "as effortlessly charming as "Katie's Been Gone" and "Ferdinand The Impostor", two more out-takes from the same era."
I wasn't sure if your request included removing the line break. Personally I think the break (and the bold) make it visually easy for the reader to see where one song analysis ends and the next one starts. But I appreciate that you have changed your Delete [the song descriptions] vote to a Neutral vote, and we are certainly willing to compromise to reach a happy consensus with everyone. Moisejp (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Clarence Schmidt see my comments above - re-reading Sounes - he actually says on page 224 The musicians have forgotten what songs exactly were recorded at the Schmidt house, but Garth Hudson thinks "Apple Suckling Tree" sounds like it may have been recorded there. Sounds like parsing to me, Schmidt's wife lived in a small old house next to his place and it sounds as though they certainly played up there, but it is ambiguous at best whether or not anything was used from any playing up there - given Clarence Schmidt somewhat esoteric and legendary status as an outsider artist it just sounds like bragging to me, I cannot support the article...Modernist (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist, how can we improve this article? Schmidt was mentioned in the article only because of p. 223 of Sounes which says: "These songs became known as "The Basement Tapes", though not all were recorded in the basement at Big Pink. Some were recorded at Hi Lo Ha—in the so-called Red Room—and others at the Ohayo Mountain home of Clarence Schmidt." Sounes's book has been described the most authoritative biography of Dylan. You clearly have local knowledge of the area. Should we ignore this sentence in Sounes because of your knowledge of the area and Schmidt? I carry no candle for Schmidt. The argument could be made that other detailed accounts of The Basement Tapes (Griffin, Heylin, Shelton) do not mention Schmidt and he is therefore questionable. Mick gold (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mick in my opinion I would ignore the input about Clarence Schmidt's house being a place where they recorded material used on the album: [17], and just go with your other locations. The place was an insane although wonderful happening in process - Clarence was a unique character who looked a little like Ernest Hemingway, and who would sometimes chase tourists away with his shotgun; the house in the picture wasn't really like a house - its a strange construction being built down the face of Ohayo Mountain. In one of these pictures [18] you can see one with Van Morrison... I'm sure he was probably friendly to the idea of playing music, but the ramshackle truth of the place belies any credible result coming out of there. Might be worth mentioning in some context, like Garth Hudson's alluding to the Surrealist atmosphere there, maybe an inspiration for some of the material. This is only my opinion. I only knew Clarence briefly in 1962 and 1963, and the last time I saw him was around 1972...Modernist (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Proviso - Is this article supposed to be in English english or American english? Currently there is a little of both, although IMO it should be in American spelling - given it's about the Band and Dylan and their written material...Modernist (talk) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an article about Dylan & The Band should be in American English, and I'll correct aberrations when I spot them, other editors too. Mick gold (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In copyediting the lede a few days ago, I added the names of the five Hawks/Band members. I oppose the recent edit that removed them, for the following reasons:
The article describes a collaboration between six musicians. It is odd to name just one of them in the lede.
The added informational value of their names far outweighs any concern over additional length. This lede is far from being oversized.
Someone who reads the lede may now quite possibly wonder, "How many of these Hawks were there?" Were they a duo? A trio? Maybe a big band?
As a stylistic concern, the resulting reference to Dylan and the unnamed, unnumbered Hawks as "these musicians" is quite awkward.—DCGeist (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, I would be delighted if we could work together on this. I moved the names of the Hawks/Band members lower down thinking that would chime better better with the composition of The Band: 4 Canadians + 1 American. Please re-write in your preferred structure. As you may have noticed I've been doing c/e on lead, trying to make prose better. Apologies if we are at cross purposes. Mick gold (talk) 17:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've given it another shot. I like how the first section of the main text reads now, with the Band members' names and national breakdown, so perhaps the lede doesn't also require the names—let's see if other reviewers have an opinion on that. The lede does need to make clear the number of musicians involved, and I've edited along those lines. I've also made another substantive addition. Here are the results of the two primary changes I've made:
"During his world tour of 1966, Dylan was backed by a five-member rock group, The Hawks, who subsequently found fame as The Band."
Given that Dylan had famously been a folk musician, I think it's important to immediately make clear to readers less than familiar with the history that The Hawks were not a folk quintet, but a rock band ("group" here, for obvious reasons). If there's consensus against this point, the sentence could be phrased, "During his world tour of 1966, Dylan was backed by The Hawks, whose five members subsequently found fame as The Band."
"For some critics, the songs on The Basement Tapes, which circulated widely in unofficial form, mounted a major stylistic challenge to rock music in the late 1960s."
I added the clause "which circulated widely in unofficial form". Something like this is necessary because we've told the reader the album did not come out until 1975. Given that, how did the songs have an impact in the late 1960s? I've offered one solution, but it's not the only possible way to approach this. Were the songs performed widely in concert by Dylan and/or The Band? Was that a primary source of their impact that should be added to or substituted for the unofficial distribution of the tapes?—DCGeist (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I'm happy with your changes, also happy you left the Band's names lower down with their national identities. I think "circulated widely in unofficial form" is good. In 1968, leading musicians (including Eric Clapton and The Beatles) heard the 14 song demo version of the Basement Tapes. After 1969, musicians & Dylan fans were listening to the Basement songs on the bootleg, Great White Wonder.
Dylan made just a handful of appearances between his crash in July 1966 and his national tour with The Band which launched in January 1974, he was virtually invisible as a live performer. Basement songs also made an impact via the cover versions inc Mighty Quinn, Wheel's On Fire, Too Much of Nothing, You Ain't Goin' Nowhere, all charted in 1967 & 1968. The Band included three Basement songs on their debut album in 1968, Music From Big Pink, which was v well received in the music community. The process of diffusion & transmission of BT songs is described in detail in section "Dwarf Music demos and GWW". Mick gold (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moar comments
I just observed that for an album article, this is huge.
Throughout the Background and recording section, you use The Hawks and The Band interchangably. Is that technically correct? Why not use just one, or call them Hawks till the specific point when they became The Band, then start calling them The Band.
Mick gold or I.M.S., do you have an opinion about what to do about this? I kind of agree it might be good to call them The Hawks for any info that is about anything that is clearly before they changed their name, unless you think it is too confusing or have a better solution. Moisejp (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the group are known as The Hawks during the first part of the article. In the 'Dwarf Music demos' section, their formal change of name to The Band is recorded. During the song-by-song analysis, comments from Hoskyns, Griffin & Marcus call the group The Band, because they are writing about the development of the musical style that will reveal itself on their debut album, Music From Big Pink. Also The Basement Tapes was an album by Bob Dylan and The Band, so we have to acknowledge that. I suggest it would be wrong to use The Hawks in this section. Obviously, criticism and commentary on the album after 1975 refers to them as The Band. Mick gold (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You cover some four months of recording in 1967 in great—I'd even say a little too much—detail. A lot of stuff can be cut without affecting anything:
"Dylan had married Sara Lownds in December 1965. By the time the basement recording sessions started in Big Pink around June 1967, Dylan had two children: Maria (Sara’s daughter from her first marriage) and Jesse Dylan. Anna Dylan was born on July 11, 1967."—Four new names, two new dates. None of them in any way related to The Basement Tapes. Can you replace with "By July 1967, Dylan was raising three children with his wife." or some such? In fact why is this stuff so far away from the bit at the top where you mention Hi Lo Ha? I suggest reducing this to 1-2 lines and moving it up to Early recordings.
That Sgt. Pepper bit can be reduced too, especially his quote.
A lot of stuff is more suited for the Themes section, like the whole domesticity thing at the end of New composition.
The Basement Tapes refers to the 1975 album. The Basement Tapes, without italicization, refers loosely to the set of songs that were recorded in the Woodstock area in 1967, including those did not appear of the album. It is commonly referred to as such in Dylan biographies, etc. but if you think it is unclear we could try to come up with a substitute expression. As Jezhotwells says below "the basement tape(s)" and "the Basement Tape" are only used when we are quoting someone who has referred to them that way. In 1969, when Jann Wenner wrote the Rolling Stone article, I guess either "the Basement Tape" was the term used at the time, or else there was no established name, and Wenner happened to call it that, without the "s." Moisejp (talk) 15:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lower case is part of several quotes so is reproduced verbatim, per MoS. I don't see a singular instance of "basement tape". The article is large compared to many album articles as the Basement Tapes, in privately circulated, bootleg and official releases, was without doubt a seminal album and a significant influence on musicians of the late sixties and early seventies. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The singular is only used once, in 1969 Rolling Stone headline: "Dylan's Basement Tape Should Be Released". We can't alter that. Mick gold (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not just a seminal album. The way in which the songs were recorded, the ways in which the songs reached the public (bootleg, cover version, demo), the way in which the 1975 album was assembled are complex, more complex than Dylan's other seminal albums such as Freewheelin', BIABH, H61R, BoB. Mick gold (talk)
Seems fair. I'd say in general that the article still has a bit of a distance to go to meet the 1a prose quality criterion, and editing such as Indopug's for flow, focus, and concision is exactly what's called for.—DCGeist (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug's edits for prose flow are excellent. I would argue for retention of footnote on The Hawks/The Crackers/The Band as this demonstrates that their name was fluid during this 18 month period, only finalised by release of Music From Big Pink. Mick gold (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored all of Indopug's edits, except for the The Hawks/The Crackers/The Band footnote until consensus is reached on it. Moisejp (talk) 13:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I re-wrote the sentence about the Manchester concert this morning (to explain audience hostility as per Indopug) so I've made a small c/e to avoid repetition. Mick gold (talk) 16:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have always and nearly only ever seen Leadbelly never until the other day Lead Belly, In my opinion Leadbelly is correct. I think this is informative, interesting and relevant - "Dylan had married Sara Lownds in December 1965. By the time the basement recording sessions started in Big Pink around June 1967, Dylan had two children: Maria (Sara’s daughter from her first marriage) and Jesse Dylan. Anna Dylan was born on July 11, 1967." And should stay. The Hawks became the Band - not that complicated but when they were working with Dylan in 67 the name the Band hadn't happened yet; it was all part of the overall creative process - not that complicated - I think the article is fine...Modernist (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Indopug and Kitchen Roll have expressed concern over the length of some of the shorter song descriptions, I have added additional material to three of the shorter ones: "Ruben Remus," "Yazoo Street Scandal" and "Goin' to Acapulco." Moisejp (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Overall I think the page is very strong and by and large needs just rewording to take it across. Except for the fact that I find the song by song treatment a little monotonous and at times forced. Its very much according to "source"... bla...Two or three sentences from a single source is always going to be unsatisfactory, and the prose, frankly tend in this section towards the repeditative: all para openers
According to Sid Griffin,
Shelton describes
Hoskyns estimates
Griffin notes that
Hoskyns identifies
According to Bowman's notes
Heylin writes
Describing this song as a good-natured nonsense song that really swings, Griffin speculates
As Heylin notes
Marcus refers
And there is more, though it improves after this. Ye really tend to tend to these, as I say I think the article is very strong otherwise, and would be one I would be proud to eventually support. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, thank you very much for your suggestions. I really liked the series of edits you and Mick gold made. There were just three cases where I felt it was better to mention the source in the text in order to clearly maintain a neutral, objective stance. I hope you are still happy with the overall changes in this section. If not, I'd be happy to discuss this further with you. Thank you! Moisejp (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Moisejp, I'm fine with your edits. Any changes I make are suggestions and preferences only, I dont have a problem with reverts or partial reverts. As I say, I'm leaning towards support, but would like a few passes over the wording before I sign off. Ceoil (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There is inconsistency as regards the serial comma. It appears some places (e.g., "Rick Danko, Garth Hudson, Richard Manuel, and Robbie Robertson") but not others (e.g., "Danko recalled that he, Richard Manuel and Garth Hudson joined"). I'm happy to go through the article and make sure the style is consistent. Nominators, which style do you prefer?—DCGeist (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some substantive queries on the Songs section:
*By positioning this track first, Dylan and Robertson were suggesting that the entire Basement collection could be heard as a series of musical odds and ends.
Dylan was involved in sequencing the album? There's no indication of that elsewhere in the article.
I don't have the Gill book that this is sourced to, but presumably Gill assumed that both Dylan and Robertson may have been involved in choosing the sequence—Mick gold, does Gill mention both of them specifically? I agree that elsewhere the information we present, in particular "Fraboni told Griffin that Robertson was the dominant voice in selecting the final tracks for The Basement Tapes and that Dylan had not been in the studio very often." in "Columbia Records compilation release" suggests Dylan may not have had much to do with it. If Gill mentions Dylan, we can't very well just leave him out, but would one solution be to replace "Dylan and Robertson" with "the album's compilers"? Too vague/evasive? Moisejp (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*One critic heard in this song two references to The Coasters: "'Along came Jones'—a song title in itself—and 'emptied the trash'—a reference to 'Yakety Yak'."
Please name the "critic". Is it Heylin (whom the article identifies as a "biographer"), who's cited at the end of the sentence, or is he quoting someone else?
It is Heylin and I've now named him. His comment is in Revolution In The Air: The Songs of Bob Dylan: Volume 1: 1957-73 (amazing how many colons you can get into one title) which is arguably a work of criticism since it consists of 300 detailed analyses of Dylan songs. For now, I've simply used his name. Mick gold (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. On the more general issue, what we might call "consistency of epithet" is important. If you're going to use "critic" as shorthand for a given person late in an article, you can't introduce him simply as "biographer" early in the article. It would have to be "critic and biographer" on first mention. At any rate, on Wikipedia, the actual name is almost always preferable to the "one critic" construction.—DCGeist (talk) 12:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*One critic heard the anguish of Blonde On Blonde return to haunt the basement proceedings. "The song proposes a romp in that posh Mexican resort, but the heavy spirit is down in Juarez again."
Please name the "critic". Is it Shelton (whom the article identifies as a "biographer"), who's cited at the end of the sentence, or is he quoting someone else?
*Another critic detected a strong Biblical theme in the song, noting that "life is brief" is a recurrent message in the Old Testament books Psalms and Isaiah. Furthermore, Dylan (writing now as a father) realizes now that "no broken heart hurts more than the broken heart of a distraught parent."
Please name the critic (or critics) and add a citation after the quote.
The second half of this para, after "their father's wishes", is taken from Griffin's book, so i've tried to make this clearer. Mick gold (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*It has been claimed that Homer was a nickname for the late Richard Fariña...
*Critics have commented that "This Wheel's On Fire" closes the album at a peak of sinister mystery: "It is virtually impossible not to see the locked wheel of Dylan's Triumph 500 in the title, the very wheel upon which his own accelerating pursuit of disaster was borne so swiftly, and then arrested so abruptly. The verses brim with unfinished business, anchored by the certainty that 'we shall meet again'." Several critics suggest that Dylan's lyric once again draws upon Shakespeare's King Lear, echoing Lear's tormented words to his daughter: "Thou art a soul in bliss; but I am bound/Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears/Do scald like molten lead."
"Critics" plural have made this observation? Please name them. Which one provided the quote? Please add a citation directly after it. "Several critics" suggest that the lyric draws on Lear? Please name them.—DCGeist (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified comments on TWOF by Gill & Shelton. Thanks for comments, DCGeist Mick gold (talk)
We did have all of the references in the Songs section much more spelled out up until this version of 01:32 July 16 [19], but Ceoil felt that it got monotonous (see Ceoil's Comment above) to see the same "So-and-so argues that"-type quotation introduction over and over. So Mick gold made a series of edits to reduce the mention of names. I guess he intended that a reference beginning "One critic said" and sourced to someone would be interpreted as meaning that person was the critic in question. However, I can see how that could be ambiguous. Personally, I wouldn't mind restoring these quotation introductions to how they were a few days ago, but I would like to keep Ceoil happy as well. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to solve this question? Moisejp (talk) 05:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ceoil's point was that monotony set in due to how similarly so many of the paragraphs opened. It's possible to restructure for variety without eliminating the necessary attributions. Open with the claim or the quote, and then place the source's name in the middle or at the end of it. Aside from that, we simply can't identify someone as a "biographer" in one spot and a "critic" in another when we're referring to the same work, call one critic "several", or present quotes without direct citation.—DCGeist (talk) 06:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think DCGeist makes the right point. Ceoil's criticisms were about monotony of style. I probably went too far in eliminating critics' names. I'll start restoring some of them so that each critical point is clearly sourced. As for biographers & critics. Heylin's Behind The Shades Take Two is billed on the cover as A Biography of Bob Dylan. Heylin's Bob Dylan: A Life In Stolen Moments: Day By Day : 1941 - 1995 is a daily chronology of Dylan's life. Heylin's Revolution In The Air and Still On The Road are detailed exegeses of 600 songs by Dylan. So I would suggest Heylin is both a biographer and a critic. Such mixing of the two is surely not unusual. Andrew Motion's Philip Larkin: A Writer's Life is billed on the cover as a biography of Larkin, but, in this book, Motion writes very detailed criticism of Larkin's poems. Similarly, Sounes's Down The Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan is described as a biography, yet Sounes makes detailed critical points in the book about the differences between Dylan's successful and unsuccessful works. I'm not disagreeing with DCGeist, we should strive for consistency.Mick gold (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Credit line in Songs missing recording date info (or "Recording date disputed") for one Band-only song: "Orange Juice Blues (Blues for Breakfast)".—DCGeist (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you added that the 1975 overdubbing on this song was done in Los Angeles. Was overdubbing done anywhere else that year? For consistency's sake, the best thing might be to remove that clause from that one credit line, and address the overdubbing location in the Songs section's introductory passage. That would be helpful, as well, because there has been no mention at all in the main text of overdubbing (it is mentioned in the lede) before this credit line.—DCGeist (talk) 06:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've come across a couple of instances in the article of quoted material lacking the necessary quotation marks—which, of course, constitutes plagiarism, even when a citation follows. (This edit, for example, created one such instance. And here's my correction of another instance.) With that in mind, this passage, from the discussion of "Open the Door, Homer", concerns me:
Gill characterizes the song as loping along jauntily while proffering various bits of advice, some common sense and some baffling: value your memories properly, they won't come again; flush out your house if you don't want to be housing flushes; swim a certain way if you want to live off the fat of the land; and forgive the sick before you try to heal them. The sensible ones lend a bogus credence to the less sensible ones.
I swung twice, connected twice. You don't think you need to go through the whole piece to check for other such cases? You're very confident those were the only two remaining instances of plagiarism in the article?—DCGeist (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
....ok, I've gone through the article and tightened all the quotes that seemed questionable. Let me know if you have any more suspicions. Mick gold (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the first paragraph of Early recordings, I think you need to briefly explain where Helm was while his bandmates were all gathered in the Woodstock area with Dylan.—DCGeist (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While Dylan's departure for Nashville is mentioned in the "Apple Suckling Tree" discussion, this really belongs in the historical narrative. The natural place would be right after the mention of Helm's October arrival in Woodstock. Except that currently seems misplaced in Early recordings. So...
I suggest moving the two sentences at the end of Early recordings concerning Helm ("Levon Helm arrived...") into an appropriate spot in the New compositions section. Once that is done, it could be followed by a line such as this:
DCGeist, I’ve been mulling over your suggestion about Helm’s return moving to New Compositions. My problem is that I cannot see where it could go without, for me, disrupting the narrative. I think it would need to go after Dylan has composed "some of the most celebrated songs of his career", and after the succeeding para about the distinctive sonic ambiance of the basement recordings. But the next para is about Dylan’s family and the context of domesticity. So interposing Helm’s return between 3rd & 4th para feels wrong. Should it go after the 4th para? Then Helm’s comment that Dylan had absorbed some of The Hawks' musical influences seems misplaced to me. You make an interesting suggestion, but I feel a bit stumped.
You also suggest adding "a little something there about how JWH is seen as relating to The Basement Tapes." In an earlier draft of this article, I placed the following in the Legacy section, after the first para about TBT being at odds with the values of rock culture in 1967:
This aspect of the basement recordings became obvious when Dylan chose to record his next album in Nashville in the fall of 1967: John Wesley Harding. The songs on that album, according to Howard Sounes, showed the influence of Dylan's daily reading of both the Bible and the Hank Williams songbook.[146] The basic, down to earth sound of that album was also a shock to the rock world. As producer Bob Johnston recalled, "Every artist in the world was in the studio trying to make the biggest-sounding record they possibly could. So what does [Dylan] do? He comes to Nashville and tells me he wants to record with a bass, drum and guitar."[146]
During subsequent revisions of this article, I removed this because I thought the article was getting too long. Of course, this has always been an aspect of TBT that has intrigued me, the way they provide a halfway point between Blonde on Blonde and JWH. (Gray makes this point in Themes.) But I feel that Dylan’s departure for Nashville to record JWH should be in Legacy (alongside The Band and Beatles' recordings which take place after TBT) rather than in New Compositions section. Mick gold (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commentary on JWH in the historical narrative that precedes Songs is not necessary, but mention of Dylan's departure is. You're telling a story of an artistic collaboration. To leave out how it came to a close is not proper story-telling. To suddenly get the answer in the "Apple Suckling Tree" song description is simply bizarre. As for the placement of it and Helm's return, yes, it may call for a little restructuring of the New compositions section.—DCGeist (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I've added material on Helm's return and Dylan's departure to record JWH. Let me know if you think this works. Would you be in favour of restoring comment on significance of JWH (above) which I removed? Mick gold (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would. You're discussing the ties between the Tapes and Music from Big Pink, so it seems natural to do this as well. You'll need to do a little rewording: "Down-to-earth" already appears in the article—can't have that twice. And "rock world" already appears twice in Legacy—three times would be overboard for that.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Query: DCGeist, you’ve wiki-liked Griffin’s point that Apple Suckling Tree really ‘swings’ to Swing (jazz performance style). Interestingly, in the caption to the sound sample, Marcus uses the same term, calling the song a “half-written ditty about almost nothing but a country beat that swings”. I believe that both Marcus and Griffin are referring to a style of country music. In a comment on Million Dollar Bash, Griffin connects the swing of that song to early Elvis/Sun singles. From the context of his remarks, I think that Griffin is referring to either rockabilly or the country style of Charlie Poole or Bob Wills, rather than Swing Jazz. Is this wiki-link accurate? Mick gold (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notion of swing in jazz and in country is very closely related. Given the restrictive (I believe, overly restrictive) nature of our article Swing (jazz performance style), a link to Western swing—the relevant country genre that is largely jazz-derived—may be more helpful. ("Apple Suckling Tree" obviously has little to do with rockabilly.)—DCGeist (talk) 08:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Was there any discussion among the nominators about including a mention of the fact that the Hawks/Band also accompanied Tiny Tim on several numbers during the basement recordings period? I know of at least two bootlegs (the well-regarded Blind Boy Grunt and the Hawks: The Basement Tapes Vol. I & II and Down in the Basement) where the Tiny Tim–Band material appears alongside Dylan–Band material. I'm not insistent on its inclusion, but we should know if it's been discussed.—DCGeist (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Griffin’s book, p. 66: "Robertson denies empathically that [the Tiny Tim recordings] had anything to do with the later Basement Tapes sessions in and around Woodstock. 'We were still living in New York and we hadn’t moved up to Woodstock yet, not at this point', Robertson says."
The Hawks collaborated with Tiny Tim to record music for the bizarre documentary, You Are What You Eat. Sessions were produced by John Simon, who would later produce Music from Big Pink and The Band. Page 69 of Griffin’s book: "As producer on the Tiny Tim sessions, Simon confirms that The Hawks did back up Mr Tim’s contributions to You Are what You Eat. Simon maintains that those tracks were recorded in a formal New York recording studio and certainly not in Woodstock." Because the material was recorded in a New York studio before The Hawks moved to Woodstock, I thought that mentioning the Tiny Tim recordings in this article was not a good idea. I have not yet discussed this question with Moisejp or I.M.S. Mick gold (talk) 10:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. You've got strong sourcing that says the Tiny Tim recordings were completely separate from the basement recordings. No need for further consideration of the matter.—DCGeist (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's no need to mention Tiny Tim. By the way, I quite preferred the Helm at the end of Early recordings b/c I really think it flows well with the Hoskyns quote about the influence of the Band on Dylan. But Mick gold and DCGeist apparently disagree? Well, I will accept the majority vote, but I do think it works better there. Moisejp (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the conceptual flow is a bit better there, but there are two compelling reasons to put it toward end of New compositions:
Chronology: Much better this way. Helm shows up in Woodstock when he shows up—just once.
Accuracy: When Helm showed up in October, he surely heard and responded not only to the collaboration's early cover recordings, but to Dylan's new compositions as well. The Hawks' interests "had rubbed off on him..."—DCGeist (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The wording of this note seems to me to reverse the actual certainty of the claims:
Griffin asserts that Helm's arrival in October meant that he did not play on most of the Dylan–Band 1967 Woodstock recordings, including the sixteen Dylan Basement Tapes album tracks—and it is unclear whether the drums overdubbed on "Too Much of Nothing" in 1975 were played by Helm. He did nevertheless perform on unreleased recordings made by Dylan and The Band in the house on Wittenberg Road that Danko and Helm shared after vacating Big Pink (Griffin 2007, pp. 201, 221, 236–241).
You say he "asserts" that Helm "did not play on most of the Dylan–Band 1967 Woodstock recordings, including the sixteen Dylan Basement Tapes album tracks". Does anyone actually suggest otherwise? I would have thought this was the consensus, noncontroversial view, well supported by the evidence. ("Asserts" is a word to watch.)
On the other hand, you state as a matter of fact that he "perform[ed] on unreleased recordings made by Dylan and The Band in [a] house on Wittenberg Road". Is there consensus that this is so? Does any other biographer/historian confirm this? If not, then this is what might be characterized as an assertion or claim.—DCGeist (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Helm on drums:
The question of which tracks Helm plays on is complex and there are no clear answers, so I would agree with not making any dogmatic statements.
Griffin suggests (pp. 236-241) there are 8 Wittenberg Road tracks, all with Helm on drums: "Wildwood Flower", "See That My Grave is Kept Clean", "Comin’ Round the Mountain", "Instrumental Jam", "Nothing Was Delivered" (take three), "Silent Weekend", "All You Have To Do Is Dream" (take 1 and take 2).
Heylin in Revolution In The Air airs his opinion that drumming is good on "Apple Suckling Tree" (p. 380) and "Odds and Ends" (p. 376), and speculates whether it could be Helm. Heylin also points out that the "Nothing Was Delivered" (take 3) with Helm on drums is sandwiched between two takes of "Odds and Ends" on the tape reel.
On p. 110 of Bob Dylan: A Life In Stolen Moments (1996), Heylin writes "it would appear that a couple of the Dylan/Hawks sessions postdate the first John Wesley Harding session (and therefore Levon Helm’s return to the fold)". Heylin then writes that he believes "Helm sounds present on 'Goin to Acapulco'" as well as "Wildwood Flower", "See That My Grave is Kept Clean", "Comin’ Round the Mountain", "Flight Of the Bumble Bee" and "Confidential To Me".
Griffin writes "there is a case for 'Confidential' and 'Flight of the Bumble Bee' coming from much earlier in the year".
Helm in his autobiography writes that the first track that he drummed on after re-joining The Hawks in Woodstock was "Nothing Was Delivered". Griffin and Heylin agree that this is Take 3 (which is incomplete). Unfortunately I don't have Helm's autobiography but Moisejp does. Mick gold (talk) 08:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given this, it would seem proper in the Songs section to indicate that Helm was possibly originally on drums on "Clothes Line Saga" and "Odds and Ends". I'm still not clear how the issue of possible Wittenberg Road recordings is addressed by the various sources.—DCGeist (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heylin is suggesting that Helm might be the drummer on three tracks on the 1975 album: "Goin' to Acapulco", "Odds and Ends", and "Apple Suckling Tree". (note my correction above) So I've included this suggestion in footnote on Helm as drummer. I thought to add what Heylin acknowledges to be speculative (and adds the caveat "Hats off to Richard" if he is wrong about the date of the recording) to the Songs section might over-clutter them. I take your point that "asserts" is a word to watch. Mick gold (talk) 10:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Problem in the opening of Dwarf Music demos and Great White Wonder:
By early 1967, Dylan's contract with Columbia Records held that he owed the label "a minimum of fourteen different musical compositions not previously recorded by him". Clinton Heylin suggests that it was not a coincidence that Dylan and Albert Grossman copyrighted fourteen of the basement songs later that year.
This is cited to Heylin (2000), p. 282. I don't see anything there that indicates "Dylan and Albert Grossman copyrighted fourteen of the basement songs later that year." On the other hand, in Heylin (2009), p. 343, it indicates that "ten songs [were] copyrighted in September 1967 (registration date: October 9, 1967)".—DCGeist (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you cut the second sentence I blockquoted, but I believe the first sentence is not particularly relevant either. I can't access the Griffin source that describes the fourteen-song demo, but as I read Heylin, the coincidence of the number fourteen appears to be insignificant. The contract with Columbia naturally required not evidence of fourteen new compositions but rather "a minimum of fourteen...record sides" of material not previously recorded by him. It appears that John Wesley Harding effectively fulfilled that...or rather it fulfilled part of "the new contract he signed with Columbia on July 1" (Heylin [2000], p. 283.) Unless you have something in Griffin that ties the 14-song demo directly to the Columbia contract, I would cut the "By early 1967..." sentence, and begin the section with the "In October..." sentence, run in to what is now the next paragraph.—DCGeist (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, it would be far more likely that the business impetus for creating and distributing the demo tape would not be the Columbia contract, but the recent copyrighting of ten of those songs: Dylan—or, maybe more to the point, Grossman—wanted other artists to record those songs to generate publishing royalties for Dwarf...which is exactly what happened. Given that, you could well lead the section with the September copyrighting I noted above in Heylin (2009).—DCGeist (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that Heylin's point about Columbia requiring fourteen songs points towards John Wesley Harding, since there was initially no question of Columbia releasing The Basement Tapes. I've added Dylan's comment in RS interview that he was being PUSHED into coming up with songs for other artists, to introduce topic of demos & cover versions. On p. 229, Griffin describes ten basement songs dubbed to mono by Grossman's office in August 1967. And then in October, a 14 songs demo was copyrighted and its songs registered with Dwarf music. So I've listed the content of the 14 song demo as the source of the cover versions. I'll respond to you queries about Helm and Wittenberg Road in the morning. Mick gold (talk) 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm concerned about the statement in the lede to the effect that Dylan's new basement songs "were a dramatic break from the verbally complex, surreal rock and roll" on his recent albums (emphasis added). Several of his songs on The Basement Tapes are arguably as surreal as—even more surreal than—anything on Bringing It, Highway 61 and Blonde: "Lo and Behold", "Yea! Heavy and a Bottle of Bread", "Tiny Montgomery", "You Ain't Goin' Nowhere", "This Wheel's on Fire". The article explicitly refers to the "surreal details" in "Clothes Line Saga". Is there even support for the claim of a dramatic turn away from "verbal complexity"? Frankly, I don't buy it...but let's go over the sources. (It's also rather jargonistic/insiderish to refer to his "critically acclaimed mid-sixties trilogy of albums" when [a] we never articulate what those three albums were and [b] I don't believe anyone was referring to them as a "trilogy" at the time.) One major change in lyrical content I do detect in The Basement Tapes is a marked decline in songs centrally devoted to concerns of romantic love.—DCGeist (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is absolutely not mandated by any Featured Article criterion, but it would be quite brilliant if one of our image magicians could take the album cover and create—for inclusion in the Cover art subsection—an "arrowed" version identifying Dylan (yes, obvious to most) and each of the five Band members (obvious to very few). This would be very helpful to readers and would certainly pass our fair use criteria.—DCGeist (talk) 06:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, notes towards lead:
I agree that many basement songs are more 'surreal' than some songs on BoB, I was thinking the same thing, so I’ve removed that word. As for what characterizes the basement songs: I would suggest the songs are shorter and the language is simpler. "Stuck Inside of Mobile", "Visions of Johanna", and "Sad Eyed Lady” all over 7 minutes with many verses.
Gill suggests 3 characteristics of Basement songs:
1. "The sound of the recordings made in the basement is warm and intimate, markedly different from the big powerful rock sound Dylan had pumped out with the Hawks” and different from sound of Blonde on Blonde.
2. “The results drew heavily on folk music that Dylan had studied in his early years in New York – not the self-righteous protest songs but traditional music forms of early years of the century."
3. "Musically the songs were completely at odds with what was going on in the rest o0f the pop world" in the summer of 1967.
Shelton writes: "In these songs, Dylan has moved away from the death-heavy atmosphere, the trapped chaos of Blonde, into a communal feeling somewhere between a barroom rumpus and a gospel choir. The meditativeness of John Wesley Harding is forecast."
Sounes writes: "It was a very different sound from the ruckus that Bob and The Hawks made on stage in 1965-66, and altogether different from the late-night city sound of studio albums like BoB. It was closer to the rural old-timey music of Harry Smith’s Anthology.
Heylin suggests these characteristics of the basement recordings: an immersion in traditional material, a high level of improvisation (more than in previous recording session), a love of choruses and a love of creating characters. Mick gold (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Better, almost there. But this still doesn't seem quite right: Dylan's "new style of writing moved away from the complex, urban imagery that had characterized his most recent albums". Highway 61 perhaps, but the imagery in BoB isn't particularly urban.
More pertinent may be the point you raise at the top, concerning those three long BoB songs. Highway 61 also has several very long songs, including the epic "Desolation Row" and three others around six minutes in length. The longest of The Basement Tapes' 24 songs ("Goin' to Acapulco") would have been only the seventh-longest song on Highway 61 and the fourth-longest on Blonde on Blonde, and nothing else on The Basement Tapes is even close to it in length. In place of "complex, urban imagery", I would suggest something like "extended narratives" or "expansive narratives".—DCGeist (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just read through the entire article again, and done a final copyedit sweep. Something for the nominators to keep in mind for future FA efforts: You must be much more meticulous about accurately representing quotations. During my earlier copyediting of the article, I had to correct the wording of more than half a dozen quotations. The mistakes did not produce any significant changes in meaning—which would be very serious, indeed—but there's no excuse for not accurately representing the written words of others. I had to do this one final time in this last sweep. Take a look at how many corrections I needed to make in the quotation that appears in the first paragraph of Themes: [20].
That said, I have also made the change to the lede I suggested immediately above. We can discuss it further, alter it if necessary, but I made the change so I would feel comfortable giving my su-...
...And then I realized that the bottom of New compositons could use a little more narrative. I'm thinking we need to say (a) that basement-style recording continued, now at the Wittenberg Road house that Danko shared with Helm after the latter's arrival (I assume Hudson and Manuel also "vacated" Big Pink? Is that right?) and that (b) this recording appears to have continued for a couple months after Dylan's departure until The Band themselves left Woodstock to record their debut (if I'm understanding correctly). That's a natural part of the historical narrative and provides a fuller context for Band basement tracks such as "Yazoo Street Scandal" and "Ruben Remus".—DCGeist (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly prefer "extended narrative" to "expansive narrative"; the latter conjures up, for me, Tales from Topographic Oceans by Yes. I still think "complex, urban" imagery is a good description of the world of H61R and BoB, and I hope I can persuade you, Dan.
Above, I quoted from Sounes, who refers to "the late-night city sound of studio albums like Blonde on Blonde". Al Kooper said that Blonde on Blonde was a great album because of the collision between two worlds: Nashville musicians and New York sensibility. Kooper said of Dylan’s recording the album: "He was the quintessential New York hipster—what was he doing in Nashville?" I hope these two testimonies to the urban milieu of BoB might persuade you that "complex, urban imagery" is a good description of the tone of H61R and BoB, particularly in contrast to the more "traditional", "rootsy" qualities of The Basement Tapes. I’ll think about your suggestion about the end of the narrative, and try to reply tomorrow when I get time. Thanks Mick gold (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounes refers to the "sound" of the albums—that's irrelevant to "imagery." Kopper is, as you say, describing a sensibility—but he, too, appears to say nothing to indicate that this sensibility translates into urban imagery, which is a matter of manifest lyrical content. I would have no problem substituting sensibility or tone for imagery, though I'd suggest cosmopolitan might be more to the point in this context than urban—more evocative of "New York hipster" and even of "late-night city". (Of course, complex wouldn't apply to sensibility or tone). —DCGeist (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: With no action for a day and a half, I got to thinking, which...sorry...means one last proposal:
There seems to be a logical flaw in the current structure, where the discussion of the specific 24 songs that appeared on the official 1975 Columbia release precedes the discussion of how that album came to be, eight years after most of the recordings were made. The Songs section, in fact, begins "The liner notes for The Basement Tapes give the following personnel credits for all songs on the album"—yet no such album has so far been discussed in the main text. (The most logical contents of a Songs section immediately following Background and recording would actually be discussion of all 100+ individual songs laid down in Woodstock.) On the other side of the coin, there's some redundancy in the discussion of the '75 overdubbing in the intro to Songs and the first part of Columbia Records compilation release that could be eliminated in a partial merger.
What I'm suggesting is that the text of the first part of Columbia Records compilation release, which describes how the album came to be, be placed before the individual discussions of the specific songs on that album. I've created a sandbox version of the article to show how this could easily be done. I think the result is a much clearer narrative.
Instead of:
1. Here's what happened in 1967 and immediately afterward.
1. Here's the selection of songs on the album, some of which may have nothing to do with 1967.
2. Here's how an official album release finally happened in 1975.
3. Here's how the album was received.
We would have:
1. Here's what happened in 1967 and immediately afterward.
1. Here's how an official album release finally happened in 1975.
2. Here's the selection of songs on the album, some of which may have nothing to do with 1967.
3. Here's how the album was received.
(Note that the sandbox version does not include the lede image or sound samples because of our restrictions on fair-use media in non-article space.) Let me know what you think.—DCGeist (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be slow but the weekend was busy for me. I was replying to your suggestion for extending narrative, before I saw your sandbox. Here's the reply:
I guess we can compromise on "urban sensibility" in the lead. I don’t feel enthusiastic about continuing the narrative in the way you suggest. I don’t think it would anything substantive to our account of The Basement Tapes (1975 album), and what we can add would be speculative.
When Big Pink was vacated in October, Helm and Danko moved to a house on Wittenberg Road, while Manuel and Hudson moved to a house off Ohayo Mountain Road. Griffin is the only writer who breaks down the recordings into 3 specific locations: Dylan’s House, Big Pink, Wittenberg Road. Griffin writes that recording sessions continued in the Wittenberg Road house; he suggests (pp. 236-241) there are 8 Wittenberg Road tracks with Helm on drums: "Wildwood Flower", "See That My Grave is Kept Clean", "Comin’ Round the Mountain", "Instrumental Jam", "Nothing Was Delivered" (take three), "Silent Weekend", "All You Have To Do Is Dream" (take 1 and take 2). All feature Dylan vocals, apart from Instrumental Jam.
Heylin advances the rather speculative thought that "it would appear that a couple of the Dylan/Hawks sessions postdate the first JWH session", which took place in Nashville on 17-18 Oct 1967. However, in Revolution In The Air, Heylin gives Big Pink as the recording location of virtually all the Basement Tape compositions he lists in that book, including the final basment recordings. Heylin suggests that Helm "sounds like" he is present on "Goin’ to Acapulco" and a few other songs. The only thing Heylin and Griffin agree about is that Dylan & The Hawks recorded "See That My Grave is Kept Clean" and "All You Have To Do Is Dream" (take 1 and take 2) after Helm’s return. Neither of these tracks is included on the 1975 albums and they are not very well known.
Hoskyns, who wrote the most detailed history of The Band, simply states that after Helm’s return, The Band (plus John Simon) started to prepare material for Music From Big Pink, which they began to record in a New York studio in January 1968. So... after Helm’s return, The Band and Dylan went in different directions. Dylan recorded JWH and released it on Dec 27, 1967. The Band recorded their debut album. They continued to live in & around Woodstock until 1973.
I think all the critics we have quoted describe TBT as a moment that occurred between May and October 1967, when Dylan and The Band recorded a new style of improvised songs. They think that most of the Dylan tracks on TBT were recorded at Big Pink. Writing about further collaborations between Dylan and The Band after that point would be impossible to verify and not add any substance to the article, imho.
As for the sandbox, all I can say is, Well done! It's much truer to the material to describe:
1. The process of recording the songs.
2. The fragmented way in which those songs reached the public via rumor, cover versions, and bootlegs.
Given your description of how the sources deal with the end of the basement sessions, yes, it seems appropriate to avoid going further into that topic in the main text.
Per your response, I'll apply the sandboxed restructuring in a single edit for final vetting by you and the other nominators.—DCGeist (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This line really doesn't work - While some of the basement songs are humorous, others exhibit a morbid preoccupation with guilt, betrayal and the void. What exactly does a morbid preoccupation with the 'void' mean - and which song or songs are you talking about? This theme of the void is not followed up later in the article either...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "void"—which, per the citations, is a term used by both Marcus and Shelton—is specifically referenced in the discussion of "Too Much of Nothing." This theme is also followed up in the discussion of "Nothing Was Delivered" and its "aching sense of nothingness". Both Marcus and Shelton appear to use the "void" in a customary fashion: as referring to the absence of anything beyond death, further implying the possible meaninglessness of life.—DCGeist (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm while I don't have the Shelton book, I do have the Marcus book and there is not one single mention of the 'void' by Marcus that I can find. According to the theme section Shelton speaks of salvation and joy being the dual themes he hears in the songs no mention of the void, further I do not interpret Too Much of Nothing as even remotely referring to the 'void' - rather I hear - meaninglessness, poverty, idleness, - and you make a case for the 'wasteland' of T.S. Eliot. Perhaps add a Shelton quote - and do you have page numbers?...Modernist (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Marcus citation is not to his book, but to his liner notes for The Basement Tapes. In his first of two mentions of the "void" there, he writes:
The "acceptance of death" that Dylan found in "traditional music"—the ancient ballads of mountain music—is simply a singer's insistence on mystery as inseparable from any honest understanding of what life is all about; it is the quiet terror of a man seeking salvation who stares into a void that stares back. It is the awesome, impenetrable fatalism that drives the timeless ballads first recorded in the twenties...
He follows up by describing how Dylan and the Band
came to terms with the void that stares back—in the summer of 1967; in the most powerful and unsettling songs on The Basement Tapes, they put an old, old sense of mystery across with an intensity that has not been heard in a long time.
In one passage in No Direction Home (p. 385, as cited), Shelton writes of how "'nothing' and 'nowhere' perplex and nag" in "Tears of Rage", "This Wheel's on Fire", "Nothing Was Delivered", "Too Much of Nothing", and "I Shall Be Released". He concludes:
The "nothing" echoes the artist's dilemma: death versus life, vacuum versus harvest, isolation versus people, silence versus sound, the void versus the life-impulse.
Actually I do have the Shelton book too. On page 440 almost as an afterthought descriptive he says The "nothing" echoes the artist's dilemma: death versus life, vacuum versus harvest, isolation versus people, silence versus sound, the void versus the life-impulse. However he hardly identifies awareness of the void as a major descriptive of these songs, I still question the lead...Modernist (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shelton certainly does identify an apprehension of nothingness as a major descriptive of the songs. An apprehension of the void is both an aspect of that and effectively synonymous with it (it is, inarguably, the conclusive term Shelton uses that signifies "nothing"). Given Marcus's focus on grappling with the "void" as a central force in the songs, there would seem to be no better, and no better justified, word in the context of this article.—DCGeist (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On p 385, Shelton mentions "Tears of Rage", "This Wheel's On Fire", "Too Much of Nothing", "Nothing Was Delivered" and "I Shall Be Released". Shelton then writes: "Throughout these songs, as throughout King Lear, 'nothing' and 'nowhere' perplex and nag." Surely, Shelton is here identifying nothingness as a major theme of TBT. The void is synonomous with a sense of nothingness." Mick gold (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I don't think nothingness and the void necessarily are synonymous. Maybe the theme section should elaborate on the meaning of 'nothing' and the presence of 'the void' - the only connection that I hear to the void is Dylan's refrain - to the waters of oblivion, and that is vague at best, mostly I hear about a yearning for salvation and meaning in a meaningless culture. The void a definition - [21]..Modernist (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've altered lead to: "While some of the basement songs are humorous, others exhibit a morbid preoccupation with guilt, betrayal and a sense of nothingness." Surely a valid summary of Shelton, Marcus, et al. Modernist? DCGeist? Mick gold (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The void" is the more elegant and concise phrasing, and is the term used by both Marcus and Shelton. I can see what's lost in the edit, but I'm not clear what's gained by it.—DCGeist (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One gain may be that the lead now takes you to two songs - "Too Much of Nothing" and "Nothing Was Delivered" - rather than presents the reader with an abtraction. Mick gold (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A better option might be to follow Modernist's suggestion to expand on the point in Themes, thus:
Robert Shelton has argued that The Basement Tapes revolves around two sets of themes. One group of songs is "tinctured with the search for salvation": "I Shall Be Released" (on the demo, but not on the album), "Too Much of Nothing", "Nothing Was Delivered", "This Wheel's On Fire", "Tears of Rage" and "Goin' To Acapulco". "'Nothing' and 'nowhere' perplex and nag" in these songs, he writes. "The 'nothing' echoes the artist's dilemma: death versus life, vacuum versus harvest, isolation versus people, silence versus sound, the void versus the life-impulse."[1] A second group, comprising "songs of joy, signaling some form of deliverance", includes most of the remaining songs in the collection.[2]
Note, I've emended "two themes" to "two sets of themes". Shelton's literal phrase is "two principal categories"—each of those categories embraces more than a single theme (1: the search for salvation and an apprehension of nothingness/the void; 2: joy and deliverance).—DCGeist (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I almost agree DC, elaboration is called for in themes although I also agree with Mick's change. The void as a term is pregnant with religious complexity and should be used carefully and not as a synonym for nothing...Modernist (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the "void" is pregnant with religious resonance. That's precisely how Eliot uses it and very clearly how Marcus, like many modern critics, uses it—to refer to the palpable absence of any post-mortal existence or transcendent realm. Shelton also uses it, though perhaps with less precision. I would have thought that "the void" had the advantage over a "sense of nothingness" because in its modern usage it is much less vague than that alternative. It is as definite, in fact, as "guilt". (Is "guilt" actually established as a focus of "preoccupation" in The Basement Tapes? In contrast to the "void", "guilt" in fact never appears again after the lede.) It is as definite, in fact, as "betrayal". (Is "betrayal" actually established as a focus of "preoccupation" in The Basement Tapes? In contrast to the "void", "betrayal" in fact never appears again after the lede.)—DCGeist (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well...there is and has been follow-up on the "void" (though it's fair to ask for more). In fact, there is no follow-up on "guilt" and "betrayal".—DCGeist (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One advantage of “a sense of nothingness” is that it corresponds to what Dylan sings about on "Too Much of Nothing" and "Nothing Was Delivered". DCGeist makes the point tht Eliot, Marcus and Shelton use the term ‘the void’. They do, but what Dylan writes about is simply ‘nothing’. I must think about guilt and betrayal. Mick gold (talk) 15:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you both evidently favor "nothingness" to the "void" in the lede, I can accept that. Given the existing content of the article, the following sentence in the lede would be justifiable:
While some of the basement songs are humorous, others exhibit a preoccupation with nothingness and the search for salvation.
I don't see enough to justify "morbid" (which literally relates to "disease") as a qualifier for "preoccupation". Perhaps "dark" or "grave", if it's felt there's a need for one.—DCGeist (talk) 15:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DCGeist. May I suggest enlarging his sentence to:
While some of the basement songs are humorous, others exhibit a preoccupation with nothingness, a sense of betrayal, and the search for salvation.
And then quote some of this passage from Gill in the section on "Tears Of Rage":
Gill writes: “’Tears Of Rage’ is Dylan’s equivalent of the blind king’s wasteland soliloquy in King Lear, applied to his own nation… In its narrowest and most contemporaneous interpretation, the song could be the first to register the pain of betrayal felt by many of America’s Vietnam war veterans… In a wider interpretation of ‘Tears Of Rage’, this song harks back to what anti-war protesters and critics of American materialism in general felt was a more fundamental betrayal of the American Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.”
Looks good. I felt we needed a bit more on "betrayal" to justify its inclusion in the lede—I added a modest-sized quote from Marqusee to Themes that addresses it (among other things). See what you think. I also supplemented the Shelton passage there, as discussed above.
As for the lede sentence, good, but again no need for "a sense of". Just "betrayal", no less accurate, is shorter and stronger.
Support: You've taken a very complicated story—has any other album ever had such a complex compositional history, complex production history, and complex distribution history?—and made it accessible and engaging, with a backbone of solid, wide-ranging research. Given the varied sources of the individual songs, the scholarly disputes over when and where they were recorded, the ever-shifting contributions of the six multi-instrumentalists (and five vocalists) involved, and the wealth of critical analysis that's been applied, the song-by-song discussion is both essential and enlightening. An article of which to be proud.—DCGeist (talk) 21:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because WrestleMania (1985) was the event that made WWE what it was in the 1980's, it could have destroyed all of Wrestling itself if it failed but its giant success catapulted World Wrestling Entertainment to the top and they never went back... Nascarking (talk) 17:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has 0 edits to this article. He/she contacted one of the primary contributors on 16 July 2010 to ask for help in making it into a Good Article (it has been listed GA since September 2008). No other evidence of consultation that I can see. Nominator is a fairly new editor, with around 300 edits, and may not be wholly familiar with FAC procedures.
Article has 4 non-free images (out of 4). Possibly one of these could be justified under current WP policy.
Support:
1st off, it was not this page I asked help in making a Good Article, It was WrestleMania not WrestleMania (1985) there's a difference. 2nd, this is just my 1st article I've ever nominated so please don't knock me down just because I just figured out how to do this stuff. 3rd I've had this account for about a year now.--Nascarking (talk) 19:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad that you've taken an interest in the FAC process. However, just because you are new to FAC does not give you license to ignore the FAC instructions, which were put in place so that reviewer resources are not wasted. You still have not notified the top contributors of the article. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe I have gotten a bit over my head trying to make a name for myself by helping to make a page a Featured Article, but I do understand that what a Featured Article should be, and this is one of them.--Nascarking (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the circumstances I believe this nomination should be withdrawn. There is no evidence of any preparatory work being done before the nom, which looks like a simple drive-by. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw – In response to the above discussions, I checked the wrestling project's talk page, and the primary contribuor, Nikki311, doesn't seem wholly enthusiastic about the nomination. If those who know an article best aren't on board with taking something to FAC, it shouldn't come here. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Oppose: Three links to dab pages and three dead external links (see the toolbox to the right). Also, substantial portions of the article are unreferenced, one section is tagged as containing OR and needing more citations, and the references are poorly and inconsistently formatted. Is there really so little to tell about "History" and "Botanical aspects"? I suggest withdrawing this article and taking it to PR instead, after fixing the problems I mentioned. Ucucha06:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it has all prepositions to be a featured article. It's quite long, comprehensive and referenced too. The pictures that are a quite good showing the city are nearly in the all sections of the article. Tomica1111 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)1111tomica[reply]
Oppose—four links to dab pages and at least five dead external links (see the toolbox to the right). Also, much of the article is unreferenced and consists of short, stubby paragraphs, so that it does not flow well. There is an excessive number of images. Most of the references are missing essential information (publisher, accessdate). The references that do have this information are inconsistently formatted. I suggest withdrawal of this article and a peer review after the above problems have been fixed. Ucucha16:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest withdrawal Per Ucucha, unformatted references, many unreferenced sections, unnecessary image gallery (see WP:IG), and the prose is not of professional quality ("The Open Youth Theatre Festival is established In May 1976 by a group of young enthusiasts", "In 2009, lights, which bright at night were set around the bridge"). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per Ucucha and Dabomb87. There are far too many images, the text is messy and the article really needs a good deal of work. 1111tomica, if you're truly determined to get the article to FA status, I suggest taking it to peer review first. WackyWaceyou talkin' to me?16:33, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
École L'Odyssée is a high school in the region of Moncton, recently built to alleviate space in the only Francophone high school in the area, which currently holds a population of over 120,000 habitants. The article has just been upped to GA, and I was looking for a shot at FA. Please note again that the school is fairly new, so sources were quite scarce, but I think I managed to find enough. Thanks in advance. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)21:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comment: Publisher details are essential for all citations. A great many of your references lack this information; see, for example, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and many more. Some also lack titles, e.g. 1, 10. It might be advisable for you to use the cite web template to assist with these reference formats. If you feel you need advise on formatting, please ping my talkpage. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually realized this exclusion of publisher information while doing another article. I'll be inserting them in around thirty minutes. Titles as well. I would also like to query on whether or not to use the {{citation}} templates; I find them very time-consuming to learn and use, and prefer the my style with <ref></ref> tags. Which would be the best option, if I formatted the references correctly? EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)16:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no compulsion to use templates; many editors share your reservations and avoid them. Their benefit, I find, is that their fields remind you of what's needed, and they help ensure that formats are standardised. If you're happy without them, that's fine. Brianboulton (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could probably fix the grammatical errors, but unfortunately, most of the other points you mention are right. Funny how nothing was mentioned in the peer review or copy-edits, however. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is just from a quick scan. Since the article passed GA only yesterday, I would gently suggest it be withdrawn, improved, and submitted for peer review again before bringing it to FAC. -Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The information about AIMS releasing surveys that people had a problem with (here) seems irrelevant, and indeed reads like an attempt to remove the credibility of an organization that ranked the school poorly. Ucucha17:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling this was going to be brought up. I was trying really hard to sound as neutral as possible, but I don't think that's really possible in this case, unfortunately.
"In fact, prior to construction, L'Odyssée and Le Mascaret had been in the minds of the province's educational sector since as early as December 20, 2002"—the sentence's meaning is unclear. Also, the reference states that money has been set aside for a French high school in Moncton, which hardly supports the article text.
"Examples of notable courses are law, Esperanto, German, Auto mechanics, carpentry, entrepreneurship, world religions, cooperative education, and leadership."—what are "notable courses"?
Unfortunately not able to source anything related to the courses rarely found in the region's area, which is what "notable courses" what meant to represent. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - I'll stop you guys there. I was optimistic about the nomination, but I had a feeling many suggestions would arise which would ask for major cuts in the article, and would probably hinder its length (which in itself is probably something to look for in an FA). Unfortunately, I've tried very hard to find more information, but that hasn't happened so far. I thank you all for the suggestions, most of which will be taken into consideration to ameliorate the article and not be put to waste, but this one wasn't meant to be... at least, not yet. I'll be trying to perfect it as well as I can. Thanks again! EricLeb01 (Page | Talk)19:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I changed the wording to reflect that the crews took shore leave.XavierGreen (talk)
My French is bad, but I think I can make out that Destremau got no recognition at the time he died, but was posthumously awarded the "Rosette de la Légion d’honneur"; even a very small award would seem more significant to me than a "eulogy", but maybe I'm misunderstanding what "eulogy" means. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've skimmed the A-class review and I'm inclined to support, but this article is a bit short for FAC and I'd like to see some reviews first. - Dank (push to talk) 03:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have used virtually every reliable english source available to compile this article. The only information i have found regarding destremau himself in english was from some ww1 forums (which i could not use as a wiki source). The end of the article does state that destremau recieved no recognition before his death but was awarded the legion of honor afterwords. Thats about all i was able to find out about him from reliable online sources.XavierGreen (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that edit, that's what I was asking for. Okay, other than helping to field copyediting questions if you want the help, I'm done here, and I'll probably be supporting unless significant objections are raised. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I only have time to check out the beginning of the article at the moment, skiving off in work and all!, and have the following comments.
Infobox
Should the German Empire flag not be used over the naval ensign?
The french naval ensign is the same as its flag. Some naval battle articles use ensigns yet others use national flags. For world war one naval battle articles i think there are more with ensigns in the infobox. For example the abattle of jutland uses ensigns while the battle of heligoland bight uses national flags.XavierGreen (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest using the national flags; all land battle articles i have worked on use the national flag over the armed forces flag as do the various aerial battle articles i have looked at.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we also add them into the casualty section too so that we know the source for the zero German losses and the vraious French losses, at a glance. Likewise next to the various outcomes of the battle. CheersEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The outcome, while obviously the French received a bloody nose from the battle surely this is a little too simple per the lede; the capture of the coal was the objective of the attack and not achieved plus the over-consumption of ammo had long term dire effects for the German force. Is it possible to expand this to a few words to cover all aspects (I assume it is sourced since it is in the lede)?
“Virtually no damage was received by the two German cruisers; the French forces lost their gunboat.” Is the semi-colon required, should it not just be something like “while the French …”
The semicolon was mine; I agree that it's a bit "abrupt", but reviewers have specific objections to almost every conjunction we might stick there. We had a big argument over "while" in the A-class review for Japanese aircraft carrier Kaga, but I'm with you here, I like "while" and I'll insert that. Xavier, this is of course your article, and I haven't even had a chance to talk with you about it so I apologize for pawing it over :) I'll be happy to stop, but I generally try to make myself available for copyediting questions on ship FACs. - Dank (push to talk) 11:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for the change, over the last year or so started using them all over the place there great ;) But i dont think it fitted too well here so hopefully there shouldnt be too much disagreement ;p --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
“The engagement had little direct effect on the outcome of World War I” – is this really necessary, so early in the war and for such a small action?
A link to the commons needs to be added if there are further photos/diagrams etc on the battle there
There are none, i created all of the ones that currently exist. Every other language wikipedia's article (including the french wikipedia) on this battle is a carbon copy of a much lower quality version of this article from when it was start class.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the further reading section should be done away with, if the book has not been used.
The problem is that this is the most detailed work on this battle, unfortunately its in print only and in french. Which means i could not read it at all except for some small excerpts which i had already gotten the same information from other sources. I put it there because someone serious about studying this action who could read french would probably want to take a look at it.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
”Word of war reached ... while at Ponape (17 July to 6 August).” Do these dates refer to period that the admiral was based at Ponape? If so i would recommend rewording the sentence to clearly state so.
I do not know for certain, though they were in german territory at the time and the wirelesses were still functioning so it was probly transmitted via radio once tsingtao recieved word. I cand dig a little deeper if nessesary.XavierGreen (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think any further digging is required, if its what the sources state and they are not any more specific i dont think its a problem.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you we know how von Spree knew about the French coal stocks?
Jose states that during the time Spee spent at Bora Bora he learned of the location and size of the coal stocks at papeete. I added some further information about it to the background section.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats it, the rest of the article looks good and is an interesting read. Its a little on the short side but i dont think you can hold that agaisnt such a small action. It seems well sourced and not obvious problems in that regards bar the infobox.
I have sourced the infobox via the information in the article however i dont appear to see in the main body of the article anything on the shore batteries being destroyed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats because they weren't destroyed, the sources only say they were silenced (which most likely was a result of the gun crews running off or something). Someone else added that to a very early version of the article i believe and ive never been able to find a source confirming that they were destroyed. As such i have removed it from the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. An interesting article, not quite at FA standard yet but could be soon.
Sources. ""Bombardment of Papeete". American Forestry (Washington, D.C.: The American Forestry Association) XXI. 1915. Retrieved November 21, 2009." - I would regard this as a primary source, so we shouldn't use it in the article. Otherwise fine - I am particularly impressed to see gudmundsson's On Armour used as a source in this context ;-
Prose. The prose needs some work to meet criterion 1a. Here are some examples...
"on his way to rendezvousing"
"von Spee hoped to seize the coal piles to refuel and raise his mens' morale"
"two unidentified cruisers were sighted by the French entering the harbor of Papeete"
"The ammunition depleted as a result of the action at Papeete contributed to the German East Asia Squadron's failure"
Also two factual points. How did the gunboat in the harbour fight back if all of its guns had been removed? And how did word of the attack reach the British if the island had no wireless station?
As for the Zelee the background section of the article states that she retained her 100-millimeter (3.9 in) bow gun as well as a handful of sailors. These sailors manned the bow gun and resisted until they were forced to abandon the Zelee. The other issues I shall take a look at this evening.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly on criterion 1a, but also 1b
It's not clear on which day von Spee actually received news of the war.
In my opinion, the background section doesn't provide enough context. For instance, while we know about the ships in von Spee's squadron, the reader's told nothing about the French naval forces in the area or whether von Spee's squadron was on their own. Why was the East Asia theatre important? How did the French find out about the planned attack on Papeete? Was it guesswork or did their intelligence suggest it's what the German forces would do?
The strength of the French forces at tahiti is clearly given, other french forces in the theater that have nothing to do with this engagement and never met or engaged any enemy force througout the entire war have nothing to do with this action so why should they be listed? I think it would be more appropriate to list those details in the article concerning the theater rahter than a particular engagement of that theater. As for the why the theater was important, i believe that to belongs in the article about the theater and not here, since this article is merely about a action that occured during that theater and not the entire history of the theater it self. The only thing the French forces at tahiti knew about the german forces was that the germans had been sighted near samoa. That is clearly stated in the background section.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Before sailing to Papeete, Spee intended to coal at Suwarrow Atoll but was prevented by foul weather": this could do with rephrasing. I'd recommend something along the lines of "Von Spee intended to coal at Suwarrow Atoll before sailing to Papeete, but was prevented by foul weather."
Why is settlements of "French Settlements" capitalised?
Because it is the proper name of French Polynesia during the time period. French Settlements in Oceania is the name of the french possesion that the island of tahiti belonged to in 1914.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Towards the end of the background section, the two German cruisers are suddenly at Papeete having been resupplying at Bora Bora. There's no explanation of the transition. And what were Nürnberg and Titania doing? Earlier it’s mentioned that they guarded the colliers while the cruisers went off the resupply, but it's not explained what they did once the cruisers had got the coal they needed.
The article clearly states that Titania and Nurnberg were sent to Nukahiva to guard the squadrons colliers while the two armoured cruisers attacked papeete. The armoured cruisers saild from bora bora to Papeete, there were no events in between.
Why does the second paragraph of the battle section start by jumping back to the start of the battle? It should be ordered chronologically.
"By now most of the town's inhabitants had fled and the town had caught fire from the German shelling": repetition of town, could be rephrased.
Why isn't it mentioned earlier that the harbour was mined?
Because it wasn't actually mined, Spee was afraid that their might be mines in the harbour. He didnt actually know if there were or not but decided not to enter to be on the safe side.
The details of the article from the American Forestry journal need to be elaborated, ie: author and page number, and the references in the article changed accordingly.
The page numbers are listed for the citations, the author is not definatevely given in the journal because he wanted to remain anonymous for diplomatic purposes. Though i do have an idea of who the author most likely is, the journal does not state this directly.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the page numbers for the The Journal of Geography and The Worlds Work articles?
Does the source call the engagement a German victory? After all, the article says the aim of the expedition was to secure the coal, which was a failure.
There were three main objectives, to capture the coal, to sink enemy shipping, and to raise the morale of the german crews since they did not see any action since leaving micronesia. This is clearly stated in the background section. Despite not taking the coal piles, the ships in the harbour were destroyed and the german morale was raised as is stated in the aftermath section. Perhaps it should be changed to minor german victory.XavierGreen (talk) 03:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"...by his misinformed superior officer": so what did the officer think had happened?
The officer thought that Destremau did poorly in his defense of tahiti and in losing his vessel. I have made this a bit more clear in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some copy edits to the article, but in places the prose just isn't clear, and the structure is not straightforward. The chronology bounces around a little and in some places more detail is required. The above is not a comprehensive list of problems with the prose and the article could do with a thorough copy edit. The article is decent though, so good luck with improving it. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Fresh out of a hard copyedit, new peer review, and look-overs by five friends from WP:VG. The egregious overlinking has been fixed, and I'm standing by with help to fix any other problems brought up by the review process. Thanks! ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ]02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think it's proper for the main contributor to assign A-class (further, I think A-class should not be given to articles without a wikiproject review), particularly when the article has not even been reviewed for a GA class. I'd like to see this article achieve GA status first (and I think this should be true for all FACs; that said, all of this is not an objection, just a procedural comment). To end this procedural remark, I think that the article is at least B class, and should get GA easily. With regards to article proper, it looks good, but I'd like to see more links. For example, the first instance of the use DVD is not linked; in body, the first instance of Toronto Star is not linked (and I am sure there are more terms that could be linked per WP:BTW). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was following User:Tony1/Build_your_linking_skills during the linking process, and I figured that "DVD" fails the relevance and uniqueness tests. DVD/newspapers aren't really special to Jonny Quest; readers interested in that topic wouldn't necessarily say, "Hm, I wonder about the Toronto Star's publication." And for uniqueness, Warner Home Video and Turner Entertainment/Hanna-Barbera are linked in the article, which all lead to direct wikilinks to DVD/VHS/release information just one or two clickthroughs away. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ]22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (submitter) - Someone's put one of those "too many copyrighted images" templates on it, but hasn't made an objection here. Since the article is 90 kilobytes long and covers a massive history with several unique points, I don't think it'd be out of the question to have this many images; not only are they necessary to describe the show's animation and characters, but the article looks very unattractively bare without them. I invite more thoughtful attention to this that doesn't operate on some numerical rule of thumb for too many images. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ]00:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the last image is needed. Other than that, it should be fine. I'll try to get back tomorrow with more comments. Tezero (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone in peer review mentioned that the article might do without it, so I'll just go to plan B. I've spoken with one of the writers before and he's open to the idea of sending in an OTRS ticket for a self-picture in the second season. For now, I've removed it. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ]22:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Why do you need such a short section and small table for the DVD releases at the bottom?
The hidden tables need to be unhidden
I would see about seperating the 2 pull quotes. Pull quotes usually aren't back-to-back in articles.
You should really consider limiting and removing any of the non-contriversial citations in the lead. I'm not sure there is much that is really contriversial in the lead nor are there any quotes. The plot info which generally shouldn't need any FE has the most.陣内Jinnai15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved under the marketing section; thanks.
What would you suggest with those tables? They always seemed unwieldy to me, even though I wanted to include them. Having them unhidden might make the article very ugly, so I'm considering just removing them, since the information is accessible in an external link.
Separated the quotes.
Lead sentences only have one citation per sentence now. I have a bad sense about overciting, so I'll be happy to remove any other cases of overciting in the lead. ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ]22:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Tezero: (edit conflict) Will add more comments later, but my brain is kind of dead so here's some for now.
Be consistent with "H-B" vs. "Hanna-Barbera".
In section "Development and history", "X-Files" should be "The X-Files".
In section "Animation and music", is the second pull-quote necessary?
"Peter Lawrence described a need"... How is it significant that he recounted such a need? Just say "Peter Lawrence needed"...
I left 3 or 4 instances of Hanna-Barbera to account for distance between the name popping up; let me know if those should also be changed. (I'm too close to the article to know if H-B's as distinctive an acronym as I think it is.)
Fixed X-Files.
Second quote's integrated into prior paragraph now.
Support; it's not right of me to be gone this long with all my issues fixed but giving no response. This has become quite a well-written and informative article in the past months. Tezero (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The last link to the blog containing the clips is right on the edge of WP:EL, especially considering it hosts a store selling the episodes... RN15:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since photographs of sculptures are derivative works, I think the only way a photo of one can be freely licensed is if the original sculpture is so licensed as well. So, I don't think a free image could be obtained in any event without Kapoor relicensing the sculpture to begin with. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The ownership of copyrighted component of the derived work will be the property of the owner of the copyright of the original work, and they can re-license it as they choose Fasach Nua (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get a report of refs appearing multiple times. I have taken care of all the Chicago Tribune articles linked twice, but with over 250 refs I missed a few others I am sure. You will note I copied large chunks of reffed text from the other FAs in the topic who all probably had some overlap on refs that they used.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted some on your talk page. I'm not aware of any other easy way to check for links that appear multiple times. Ucucha19:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, as an experienced FAC participant, it would be helpful and appreciated if you would check these routine bookkeeping items before submitting a nomination-- unprepared FACs add a load on reviewers and contribute to the backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support A well written article which I think addresses each component of the park in turn very well and then analyses critically. Well illustrated with freely useable images. Looks FA standard to me. Well done to the article developer/s.Dr. BlofeldWhite cat21:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns: some expert needs to judge if the following images have proper licenses OR should they have a fair use rationale and be marked with {{Non-free 3D art}}. Does commons:template:FoP-US (from commons) apply?
Prominent newspapers such as The New Tork Times, The Economist, etc, do not need publisher details added: you have not done this for the Chicago papers or some others, e.g. The Boston Globe.
I have eliminated "publisher=[[Time Inc.]], publisher=[[The New York Times Company]]" I have left publisher=[[Crain Communications Inc.]]|work=Crain's Chicago Business and publisher=[[Hearst Communications Inc.]]|work=[[San Francisco Chronicle]] because neither of the latter is as redundant with the work.--64.134.196.129 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At a guess, I'd say the correct publisher for Ref 156 is "City of Chicago"
You wouldn't be hiding anything, the required page is given in the citation. It isn't necesary to also give page information in reference lists or bilblographies, as indeed you haven't with any other books. Brianboulton (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Homologous recombination is an important mechanism of DNA repair and is also a major engine of genetic diversity. I have worked intermittently on this article since December 2008, expanding it from a stub to its present state. The article has gone through two peer reviews, one before and one after a successful GA nomination. I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. Thanks in advance for any comments and suggestions. Emw (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will be a difficult article for many readers to understand and some will not read any further than the Lead. I would like to start my review with this section, which should be able to stand alone.
1. I know many sources use the expression "double-strand break" but I think it should be explained or not used in the Lead. Try something like "a break that occurs on both strands...."
I agree -- done.
2. Instead of "evolutionarily adapt", I offer "adapt during the course of evolution".
So changed.
3. I could not find the reference to horizontal gene transfer in the source cited. Perhaps I missed it.
Fixed. The reference was intended for the previous sentenced.
4. The 5' end usage could cause confusion. The expression "5' end of the damaged chromosome" is used, but chromosomes don't have 5' and 3' ends, they have both types at both ends. I have drawn a diagram to help other reviewers understand my point:Discussed in point 4. When DNA is damaged on both strands, new 5' and 3' ends are exposed. It is these newly exposed ends that are the subject of discussion here and not the "5' end of the chromosome". We need a better expression to identify the different strands.
Reply The usage could be misconstrued, but I can't think of a succinct clarification. I try to indicate which pair of 5' ends are cut away by putting things in context: "sections of DNA around the break on the 5' end of the damaged chromosome". That paragraph is an attempt to sum up the most important mechanistic details, and as such I think it will be the most challenging for readers.
I think "ends" (plural) would be better, perhaps "the 5' ends of the break" is better than chromosome here. I offer, After a double-strand break occurs, sections of DNA around the 5' ends of the break are cut away in a process called resection. In the strand invasion step that follows, an overhanging 3' end of the damaged chromosome then "invades" an undamaged homologous chromosome.Graham Colm (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To help the situation I've considered trying to make a lead animation, perhaps something along the lines of the DBSR model here: http://web.mit.edu/engelward-lab/animations.htm. Do you think something like that could be appropriate?
5. Here, "they share some of the same steps" I think the same is redundant.
Agreed, fixed.
6. This statement bothers me "and has been observed in viruses, suggesting that it is a fundamental biological mechanism". Why does it? Given that viruses are highly evolved and highly efficient biological entities, the mechanisms that they use are not de facto fundamental.
Reply I was more trying to find some way to say "three domains and viruses" than to imply that HR is important because it's observed in viruses. I've attempted a fix. Also, on closer scrutiny the word "fundamental" seems vague; I've tried addressing this too.
Last for now, and this is not in the Lead but in the section on viruses, the use of Influenza was a poor choice because these viruses mix up their genes more often by reassortment, which if a different mechanism to the one described in this article. I will add more to this review during the next few days.Graham Colm (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your thoughts so far! They're very helpful. And good point on the influenza example. I will work tonight to fix that and find better examples. Emw (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's formatting problem with reference 41, and this paper also by Eddie Holmes might be a useful citation for this section:[30]. Also, it will greatly help the closing delegate if you could clearly distinguish your replies from my comments. Signing each reply is probably the easiest way :-) Graham Colm (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
I think the section on Eukaryotes should come before Bacteria. It seems a more logical structure to me and some readers might find the Bacteria section difficult and the beginning of the Eukaryotes section is gentler in this regard. The Bacteria section also introduces single-strand breaks for the first time—the reader has not be introduced to these in the Lead, so I think a sentence or two about these in the Lead is needed. Another problem with the Lead is that it discusses DNA only, but the section on viruses also discusses RNA, again I think a sentence needs to be added to the Lead. Graham Colm (talk)
I've switched 'In eukaryotes' and 'In bacteria'. I changed 'single-strand break' to 'single-strand gap' as the latter seems to be used more in literature, and also added an appositive to the first instance of the term in the first paragraph of 'In bacteria'. Tomorrow I will make any adjustments to the lead regarding single-strand gaps and RNA. Emw (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This needs a source, " Left unrepaired, these double-strand breaks...can in turn lead to cancer."Graham Colm (talk)
Although it can stand on its own as a static image, this figure is intended to be viewed as an animation. The extra white space on the bottom allows the depicted DNA molecule to be centered while the frames are carried out. If cropping out the white space de-centered the DNA in the animation, would you still prefer it to be cropped? Emw (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think a short section on the history of HR research would improve the article by putting the subject in a context that will help readers new to the subject. I suggest something along the lines of: Following on from the discoveries made by Gregor Mendel, it was shown that genes are often linked and do not segregate randomly. This was discovered by William Bateson and Reginald Punnett who were pioneers in the field of genetics during the early 1900s. In 1911, Thomas Hunt Morgan introduced the term "crossing over" and it was shown later that this occurred by an exchange of material between pairs of chromosomes during meiosis. Curt Stern later showed that crossing over—later called "recombination"—could also occur during mitosis. In 1930, Hans Winkler—who coined the word "genome"—introduced the term "gene conversion". The discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by James Watson and Francis Crick, and work on mutants of bacteria led Robin Holliday, in 1964, to propose a model for homologous recombination in meosis now called a Holliday junction. Graham Colm (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent idea, and thank you for the suggested wording. I've added a two-paragraph 'History and discovery' section, with references. The first paragraph is taken directly from your suggestion. The second paragraph attempts to link those historical studies with models of recombination discussed in the article. Emw (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very concerned about the depth of detail in the article, which is deeper than the current textbooks that I have next to me. I think this level of detail, with its unavoidable jargon, is too much for an encyclopedia. Much of this article will not be understood by readers who lack highly specialist knowledge. I think the article needs to be written as more of an overview rather than a scientific review. The descriptions of HR in the books I have before me (Lewin's Genes X, 2011, ISBN9780763779924, Molecular Biology-genes to proteins, 2008, ISBN9780763759636 and Lewin's cells, 2011, ISBN9780763782665) are much clearer. I would be interested to hear the views of other reviewers on this.Graham Colm (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The depth of the most involved parts of this article is about on par and in many places less detailed than textbooks I have consulted. These include Albert et al (2008) Molecular Biology of the Cell, 5th edition; Lehninger (2005) Principles of Biochemistry, 4th edition; and Friedburg et al (2009) DNA Repair and Mutagenesis, 2nd edition. Compared with other featured articles on specific subjects in molecular biology, for example RNAi and Exosome complex, I don't think this article is more difficult to read. I think this article does a notably better job than those in introducing readers to technical terms, even before your helpful notes on what jargon could use more explanation. Also, I would note that I've preempted the two peer reviews for this article (first, second) asking reviewers to pay special attention to the issue of this article's accessibility. While reviewers have offered advice on how the article could be made more accessible, none expressed concern that its level of detail was too complex. In my opinion, this subject has 'parent' articles -- like DNA repair, Genetic recombination and Meiosis -- where readers can go for a less detailed overview. The subject of this article is specific in nature, and as such I think is appropriate in its level of detail. Emw (talk) 04:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After working for a few days to simplify the article, I think I may have been a bit hasty to say it was "appropriate in its level of detail." I have gone through and significantly pared back detail where it seemed unnecessary to comprehensiveness. Where I haven't been able to bring myself to cut out detail, I've tried splitting sentences up, simplifying terms, and briefly explaining jargon I feel is relevant to the point. I still have some sections to comb through, like RecF pathwayand Evolutionary origins. If you have specific concerns about the accessibility of the following sections, please let me know: Lead (still needs mention of RNA), all of 'In eukaryotes', 'In bacteria' excluding 'RecF pathway', 'Effects of dysfunction', and 'Technological applications'. Emw (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you recent edits have greatly improved the article. I would not use the "see below" device because it interrupts the flow, but this is just a personal preference. Wiki linking to other sections is an option, which you have used in places, but I don't know what our current policy is on this. I understand your feelings about cutting out detail, but sometimes it has to be done. (Nothing to do with this FAC but you could consider recycling the deletions to expand related articles that are linked. That way they will not be wasted. The Spo11 article, for example, is a stub, which I tinkered with it a little yesterday). I am close to adding my support now, but would like to see more reviews from uninvolved editors. Graham Colm (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to stick my neck out on this one and add my support. The nominator has done a superb job on this difficult subject. The way the proteins described in this article—most of which are enzymes—have been named will cause some difficulties for lay readers, but I think there is little that can be done about this without compromising the article's accuracy and comprehensiveness. The nominator has gone to great lengths to improve the accessibility and I have little more to offer. I am aware of the prose review that is on-going on the articles discussion page, but I see no major obstacles in this regard in the way of promotion.Graham Colm (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As I was writing this Colin added some comments on the article's discussion page, it seems that what some enzymes do (helicases and endonucleases for example) needs a little more explanation. I think we need to say no more than an endonuclease cuts DNA in the middle, and exonuclease prunes the ends, and a helicase twists it into the double helix. I think explanatory phrases added to the sentences should suffice. Graham Colm (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: For what my opinion is worth, I completely support this FAC. It has been improved since I reviewed it for GAN, which is no mean feat. It would be a proud addition to other great articles in this topic area. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Ironholds
"Following the discoveries made by Gregor Mendel, it was shown that genes are often linked and do not segregate randomly. This was discovered" - discovered, twice. Can you use an alternate word?
"Double-strand breaks can be repaired through homologous recombination or non-homologous end joining (NHEJ). NHEJ is a type of recombination which, unlike homologous recombination, does not require a long homologous sequence to guide repair. Whether homologous recombination or NHEJ is used to repair double-strand breaks is largely determined by the phase of cell cycle. Homologous recombination tends to occur in the S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, when sister chromatids are more easily available. Compared to homologous chromosomes, which are similar to another chromosome but often have different alleles, sister chromatids are an ideal template for homologous recombination because they are an identical copy of a given chromosome. In contrast to homologous recombination, NHEJ is predominant in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. It occurs less frequently after the G1 phase, but maintains at least some activity throughout the cell cycle. This cell-cycle based control of homologous recombination and NHEJ varies widely between species." is entirely without inline citations
Thanks for the note. I had split the paragraph and overlooked duplicating a reference from the new second paragraph. Fixed. Emw (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first instance of the term is wikilinked. The second instance you're referring to is in the next sentence. Emw (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"to cross-shaped structure known as a Holliday junction. " - a cross-shaped structure? and you've linked Holliday junction before, I'd just go with "to a cross-shaped structure known as a Holliday junction." Ironholds (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several terms I link to multiple times in the article. I only link terms once per section. These terms are both technical and critical to understanding subject. While it may be overlinking, I think this violation is warranted here because the terms are especially unfamiliar to readers, and I think most readers will not carefully read the article from start to finish but rather scan through sections. What are others' thoughts? Emw (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the images have appropriate licences, sources and attribution. Many of these have been created by the nominator and I am impressed by their quality, usefulness and high standard. Graham Colm (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It pains me to do this because this is clearly a very professional article and a fair chunk of it makes great effort to be accessible. The lead in particular is nearly there (see my comments on the talk). But the various pathway sections have completely lost me. I'm sure it would be useful to someone in the latter years of an undergraduate biological-science degree but as someone who hasn't even taken biology at school, I can't make head nor tail of it. But don't put me down as a "doesn't understand science" person because I enjoy New Scientist (last week's was on genetics as it happens) and am struggling through an advanced textbook on tuberous sclerosis. From what I've been able to understand I can see this is an important process and touches on several disease and how-life-works details that are interesting. I wonder if the detail of the pathway/model stuff can be moved to other (new) articles and this part rewritten in a much more basic fashion with even more diagrams and step-by-step explanations. Here's a quote from our policy page WP:NOT:
A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.
As I said, the lead and some other sections are pretty close to meeting this policy requirement. I appreciate that a 12-year-old isn't even going to read this article. Think more "New Scientist reader" and you won't go far wrong. Colin°Talk21:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the nominator will not mind my responding. Would a glossary section like the one here be helpful? I agree that more diagrams would also be helpful and that spin-off articles could be expanded and linked. (I made this point above, WRT to Spo11). I am not entirely convinced by the "New Scientist argument"—I think we can, and often do better. I have read some very poor articles in New Scientist; they often over simplify and frequently make mistakes IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I knew I'd get a "New Scientist oversimplifies and is full of errors" response :-). I'm more concerned with the target-audience aspect than the material it contains. Some people on WP think we should aim at 12 year olds, but that is unrealistic for this article. Others think that having articles only an undergraduate could follow is acceptable. The other aspect of New Scientist is that its articles must be capable of being read without having a biology reference textbook open at your side. I'm sorry if my talk page comments make anyone despair that someone so ignorant that they need basic biological terms like somatic, eukaroytes or meiosis/mitosis defined for them could possibly hope to understand the pathways and mechanisms of homologous recombination.
The descriptions of the various mechanisms involved are very complex. I also got the impression (though can't find the words at present) that some of this is conjecture. To what degree are these pathways known for sure? A glossary may well help some of the article particularly if a difficult word is used several times so the reader might have forgotten the definition given earlier. My problem with the mechanism bit is I can't really visualise it and because it is so alien and complex, I can't hold the description in my head. Do any of the textbooks you have treat this in a simpler way? Colin°Talk09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I run into the complexity vs. comprehensiveness problem frequently, and often have problems understanding my own sources when they dive into fine details on anatomical structure, particularly with skulls and teeth... and I have a degree in evolutionary biology! Although I don't have time to dive into a thorough review of this article, I feel that if the article meets all other criteria and is understandable (sufficiently linked and explained) by someone who is beginning studies in the parent field, then the article should pass. Any area of study has its own terminology and assumes varying degrees of experience to understand. You can't reasonably explain a comparative anatomy study to someone who's never studied biology and doesn't understand evolution... not without going significantly off-topic. You can't explain calculus to (most) students just learning the ins-and-outs of algebra. In my opinion, there should be no "standard" that applies universally to all Wikipedia articles. Technical articles should be sufficiently explained and linked, and certainly should be written not necessarily for the expert but for someone who has an appropriate background and an introductory interest in the topic. An article on broader or generally popular topics, such as Mathematics, Evolution, Rodent, or Shania Twain should be readable by a very broad audience. Articles about Euclidean algorithm, Homologous recombination, Oryzomys, or maybe Franz Kafka could be written at higher reading levels, depending upon their exact content. Even within the articles, if the material is simple, write it simply. It's the lead that needs to be written the simplest. (In the case of this article, only the 2nd paragraph in the lead seems to be a little too detailed or complex.) If a topic is complex, write as simply as you can without making errors, misleading the reader, or losing important detail. In other words, as long as this article meets all other criteria, is comprehensive, and is written for the broadest audience possible given the topic level, then I would support passing the article. Just my $0.02... – VisionHolder « talk »16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The middle half of this article is at a level more suited to an undergraduate textbook than an encyclopaedia for the general reader. If we want to start aiming our articles at 1st and 2nd year biology undergraduates then that's a discussion to have over at the policy pages. People look to featured articles as an example to follow. There is a danger that we will encourage our biology articles to become impenetrable to the general reader. Would this content be accepted by Encyclopaedia Britannica? BTW: I have no problem with other editors challenging my oppose. I do congratulate the editor(s) on the remarkable accessibility of much of it. Colin°Talk20:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've gauged the complexity of this article using two assumptions. The first is along the lines of what VisionHolder mentioned. That is, top-level articles in a scientific or technical subject area should strive to be general and very accessible; lower-level articles are inherently more detail-oriented and thus less accessible. While it is an important mechanism in biology, homologous recombination is not a top-level subject in biology. As I've noted in comments to GrahamColm, I consider this article to have higher-level 'parent' articles: DNA, DNA repair, Genetic recombination, Meiosis, etc. The second assumption I've made is that the accessibility of this article should approximate that of similarly-scoped featured articles in molecular biology, for example RNAi and Exosome complex. In that respect, and as I have mentioned previously, I think this article is far more accommodating to lay readers. Emw (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to a glossary: would entries for the following terms help? "Mitosis", "Meiosis", "Double-strand break", "Resection", "Strand invasion", "Holliday junction", "Branch migration", "Resolution". Let me know which terms should be added or removed. And for diagrams, which would be the most helpful? I can make one or possibly two quality diagrams in the near term Emw (talk) 22:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may not be able to find the time at present to give you the reply you deserve and to study the recent changes. Speaking abstractly, this two-tier Wikipedia with some accessible articles and other impenetrable articles (for experts only) doesn't have any basis in policy. I can see a hyperlinked information-base working that way, but it isn't how Wikipedia was set up. It is a general purpose encyclopaedia for the general reader. Just like New Scientist and Brittanica must reject or send-back-for-revision some brilliant articles because they fail their editorial policy on readership, so should we care that our featured articles represent the best of what Wikipedia can produce for its target audience. I have sympathy with the great difficulty this poses for our advanced topics (and think perhaps the wider-scope genetic recombination would be an easier choice for FA) and ultimately it may greatly restrict what we can say. It might be that it is just not possible to explain to a general reader how Homologous recombination works within the space of a decent sized article. Perhaps all we can give them is the flavour. On my user page is a quote: "It is our job to interest [our readers] in everything. It requires the highest degree of skill and ingenuity." It does indeed. Colin°Talk14:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to bring this topic up at WP:VPP. I'll gladly join the discussion. (Just notify my on my talk page if you do.) But let me be clear about two things. First, I am not suggesting a two-tier Wiki, just a graduated Wiki (simple text for simple topics and gradually more complicated text for more complicated topics—with all topics requiring a generally simply lead). Second, I don't feel articles should be written for experts, but maybe for students coming into the field. I won't go into reasons or debate it further because this isn't the place. I only wanted to voice my opinion that this article shouldn't be held up on these grounds. Just my $0.02. – VisionHolder « talk »15:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Colin, for perspective, consider that Britannica doesn't even seem to have an article on homologous recombination. The closest thing I see is here -- a 176-word stub confusing genetic recombination and homologous recombination as it occurs in meiosis. I note this example because I think it's roughly what Wikipedia's coverage of many non-top-level science topics would be like if your editing philosophy were followed. In my opinion, an accessibility standard along the lines you seem to propose would require a massive recalibration or demotion of many non-top level molecular biology FAs, including Enzyme kinetics, Enzyme inhibitor, Cyclol, Antioxidant, RNAi, and Exosome complex.
I have responded to the concerns you listed at Talk:Homologous_recombination#Comments_by_Colin. While it seems we have some disagreements about the appropriate level of detail for this article (and non-top level science articles in general), the specific concerns you listed on the article's Talk page have been quite helpful. Emw (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tricky problem. I'm afraid I don't have any more time at present. There's a policy issue here that should perhaps be discussed in a wider forum. I've said my piece and if the consensus is against me this this "oppose" will be ignored, and that's fine. Colin°Talk18:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it is a tricky one. If it is a policy issue, perhaps it is unfair to make this FAC a test case. I agree that sections of the article can be mind-boggling to some readers, but the article is of a similar standard to quality text books on the subject (those listed under my strikes above for example). Text books usually lack the full complexity of review papers and monographs and this article is similar in this respect. I think much progress can still be made in reducing the jargon—particularly with regard to the names of the enzymes involved. But I think we have to consider readers and teachers who cannot afford textbooks—would we be doing them a disservice by offering less than a standard textbook on the subject? Bye the way, there is nothing conjectural here, it's a well-sourced description of the currently accepted mechanisms. No doubt these will change in time, but so will this article. Graham Colm (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think I am forgetting the all important Featured Article Criteria; my comments immediately above, especially those about the availability of good textbooks, is possibly off topic. I am concerned that the prose is not engaging. I am not withdrawing my support, but could the closing delegate take my reservations into consideration? Graham Colm (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you elaborate a little bit on your concern that prose is not engaging? Is it distinct from a concern that the article is "going into unnecessary detail" (WP:FACR 4)? If so, could you offer some actionable suggestions to make the prose engaging? If not, could you comment on how far the work done in the past week (summarized below) goes in addressing your concern about unnecessary detail and inaccessible jargon? Emw (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remaining issues: I'd like to get an idea of what remains to be done. In the long discussion above I see something resembling a request for more diagrams and a glossary. For diagrams, I can make one or possible two in the near term, but I'd like to know what I should be making them on. For a glossary, I'd like to get others' opinion on whether one for the following terms makes sense: "Mitosis", "Meiosis", "Double-strand break", "Resection", "Strand invasion", "Holliday junction", "Branch migration", "Resolution". What terms should be added, which should be removed? Also, it seems that reviewers would like enzyme jargon to be reduced -- but where, and to what degree? Other notes on specific and actionable work to be done would be appreciated. Emw (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to resolve problems like this, "working in conjunction with Slx4 and Saw1". We can't rely on just wikilinking, we have to add something like, "enzymes called....that". This seemingly, throwaway use of enzyme nomenclature is the highest obstacle to promotion IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the drive-by mention of Slx4 and Saw1. That section, SSA pathway, has been reworked to have a clearer narrative that should make it easier to follow. I have also added more relevant information on the role of specific proteins in the larger process, which hopefully adds context and not simply detail.
I have also drastically reduced the size and level of detail in the RecF pathway section. The section now mentions only one specific protein, which was mentioned previously and is probably the most important enzyme in homologous recombination. (I've moved the more detailed material into a new child article, RecF pathway.) Emw (talk) 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just now gone through the article and ensured that the first reference to every protein explicitly notes that the referent is indeed a protein (e.g 'the RuvB protein' instead of simply 'RuvB'). I have also indicated the function of every protein mentioned in the article. With this, I consider the concern about "throwaway use of enzyme nomenclature" to have been addressed. In addition, I've gone through another significant sweep of the article in my effort to exhaustively define every piece of jargon at (or near) its first occurrence -- or to add context which indicates the jargon's meaning. Emw (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because...
I've worked on the article for many months, since around July or August of last year. The subject is a song by Kelly Clarkson, the first winner of American Idol, but don't let that put you off! It's a very nice song (honest -- you can even play a clip to hear for yourself), and it has a bit of a "you stole this" story behind it. I'm confident the article meets all four FA criteria. Thanks for reviewing, Matthewedwards : Chat 22:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the the first link, I don't know if its a reliable source. For the second link, one can hope that it will be corrected or something. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well if someone else can tell me, that'd be great. It is from RealNetworks, but I don't know what our rules are when they're re-using a review. They have at least credited it to Rolling Stone, though. Matthewedwards : Chat 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rollingstone.com works now, so I've updated that url. Must have been a temporary glitch. I've also replaced the other one with the real.com url. No more dead links. Happy happy, joy joy!! Matthewedwards : Chat 03:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I did was not subtle but it worked. With only one bracket I remember using a <nowiki> to get it to work but in this case an archive seems the best way to go. Hekerui (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While the link statuses are in working order, I have one more comment. In the "Release history" section, there's no citation for the release date in Australia. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well honestly, I've seen that many of the more recent FAs don't bother with a release history section. And in my mind also, it makes no sense to include one. If the song is released in 20 or 30 countries, then shouldn't we list the release dates for every single country, or at least every country that it charted in? But it's unfeasible to do that. I've removed the section twice, but there's an editor who keeps putting it back in. I don't know why he picks these countries either. If you're happy with the section being removed, I'll gladly remove it again. Matthewedwards : Chat 14:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, looking at a featured song article, 4 Minutes, it doesn't have a "Release History" section in it. I see no problem with the section being removed. But either way, I'll Support it being a Featured Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lenght -> Only it is needed the main length (Album version) the rest should (may)be in the prose
Removed. Since the lengths differ by mere seconds, I don't think it's worth mentioning at all. This is one of those things that just keeps getting added and removed in song articles Matthewedwards : Chat 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
2008 Beyoncé Knowles song -> Did yiu mean 2008 Beyoncé Knowles' song or 2008 Beyoncé Knowles's song?
Nope. I meant "the 2008 Beyonce Knowles song", with no possessive intended. Just like it would be " the 2010 Lady Gaga song, 'Alejandro'" to pick an example with no s. As far as I know the punctuation is currently correct, but if I'm told by a second person, then I'll change it. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
according Lamb, "toe the line between underlying pain and an almost cold, removed sense of resignation ... Each line trails into an unknown, undefined distance." -> It is in two sections
Gotcha! I removed it from the critical reception section and left it in the composition section. There's a second quote from Lamb at the beginning of the Critical reception section, so I don't think there needs to be more from him. Thanks for clarifying! Matthewedwards : Chat 03:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Consistency needed in accessdates (Retrieved July 29, 2009 / 3 August 2009.)
Comment. I think this statement needs reworking: "Clarkson's vocal range spanning from B3 to E5". This appears to be sourced to the sheet music. Correctly, the statement should read: "The sheet music indicates the vocal range spans B3 to E5" or "The vocal range spans B3 to E5 in the sheet music". If the original statement is sourced to a performance or a recording then the original statement is correct but should be sourced to the performance or recording. SoniaSyle (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 7: How would this be verified, on the given information?
One would have to find a recording of the program. All the information is there to do that. It was on the SIRIUS OutQ station of the Sirius Satellite Radio network, on The Morning Jolt with Larry Flick programme, which was presented by Larry Flick and was broadcast on August 3, 2009. I don't see why this is any different to a non-online source for a book. Matthewedwards : Chat 23:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question I was asking was not how to find the program, but how to find the information within the program, in the same way that we require page references to guide us to information within a book. The "cite episode" template has a field which enables you to indicate "minutes in", which is like a page reference. Any chance of that here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Author given as just "Johnston". The only author information I can find on the site is "Posted by Maura". If there is uncertainty over authorship, best leave it out. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perez Hilton is a former journalist, his website perezhilton.com is all about celebrityness, which the article URL falls into. He has appeared on numerous TV shows and news programs to discuss his work, he has been profiled in magazines such as Wired and Los Angeles. The fact that it is a blog doesn't necessarily mean it's unreliable. WP:TWITTERMatthewedwards : Chat 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For this one could argue with WP:PRIMARY that it's okay because it's such a minor descriptive statement and needs no interpetation. It was also reported by votefortheworst.com, which is a notable site. Btw this has become a fad apparently. Hekerui (talk) 00:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said notable. It's not hard to find the post on the website. It doesn't matter since it's not used in the article. Hekerui (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you did. I was wondering if it is a RS, and more so than Perez so that I could use that as a ref instead. I haven't found anywhere else that mentions her mashing the two songs together, but then, I'm not sure if it's totally important to the article either. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The aggregator Metacritic uses Slant Magazine and the review was written by their main staff reviewer. Their media kit also notes that they exist since 2001, what other media commented on them and where their people appeared, and the kind of traffic they attract. Granted, this is a resumé but together with the earlier points I'd say this well passes muster. Hekerui (talk) 00:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Asking the question "Why is this source reliable?" does not mean that it is not. It is merely a request for extra information to establish reliability, which has now been given. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Some quickies from one of the least musically inclined reviewers here:
Critical reception doesn't seem to be covered in the lead. That is the only section without a mention at the beginning, and it could use a sentence or two or summary.
Background and release: "He later told The Denver Post that has gotten over the situation...". Missing a "he" in there.
Don't think the comma after Entertainment Weekly should be there.
Check for missing punctuation after "but admitted he likes the song".
Composition: Little overlinking of MTV here, considering there was a link to them in the previous section.
Live performances: Another couple of those repeated links: MTV (again) and The Hartford Courant.
"Lori Huffman of Atlantic City Weekly described Clarkson's performance of the song an 'emotional wallop'...". Missing "as"?
Comment I would fail this, for though the information is probably all correct, too many times the sources don't support the article statements. Please correct and forgive anything mistaken below, this is rather a rushed look at the article.
In the lead, sources should be given if using direct quotes.
In the first sentence in the body of the article, two sources (ASCAP and Nick Levine in Digital Spy) are given to support who wrote the song and when, but ASCAP doesn't give us the "when", and Levine doesn't so much as mention the song, so one cannot use the two sources to definitively give the date (they may have been working together for some time earlier than the Levine news piece, or for a good deal later: we don't know when "Already Gone" was written from these sources).
Second sentence, we're told "Tedder and Clarkson wrote six songs" but the source, Levine again, says no such thing, and that "'Already Gone' is one of three of those that appear on the tracklist" with Levine cited again, and again it's unsupported by Levine.
Another source is given for this second part above—CBS—but the CBS piece in fact quotes Clarkson saying, "We wrote about six songs together, four or five of them made the album."
OK, so I've removed the Digital Spy ref [2] from the first part of the sentence, but left it and ref [4], the cited quote from Clarkson, at the end of the sentence. It is actually three song that ended up on the album, but I don't believe this is contentious so it doesn't really need a cite. Anyway, the album itself can be used as a primary source for that. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Third sentence now: "However, in late 2008, she heard Beyoncé Knowles' song 'Halo'"—source given (NY Post): "Only when her new CD, 'All I Ever Wanted,' was ready to be shipped did she hear 'Halo'" (i.e. no source for this being late 2008.)
Fourth para., first sentence: "The first two singles lifted from All I Ever Wanted were uptempo pop rock songs, but executives at RCA Records wanted a slower ballad to be released as the third single". The CBS source given supports neither clause.
Wiki article: "Clarkson told MTV that it was unfortunate that although the two songs sound the same, they do have different melodies." No, rephrase, this changes the meaning of what she said to something near its opposite.
The end of the section counts EW as thinking it likely a leaked song is about Tedder, whereas they ascribe that speculation to Idolator. It then joins together lyrics from two different parts of the song as if quoting run-on lines verbatim, which is a bit sloppy.
I feel like all the information here has been gathered and put together in good faith with a deal of work, but it ran into trouble with regard to what information came from what source. It doesn't feel like it would take a lot to put the above right, but the article is not ready in my opinion. 86.44.16.126 (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. I've checked the sentences in the rest of the paragraphs, and can't find issue with them, but if you're willing to continue the review, I'll happily correct anything else you find. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a MILHIST A-class review and I believe it worthy of being a featured article. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Armour After the Battle of Jutland revealed their vulnerability to plunging shellfire - reads oddly, 'their' could be the torpedo bulkheads from the previous sentence. (And in any case surely that change should be in the "Wartime modifications" section?
More issues - having returned to this, I am actually more concerned than I was previously. This isn't due to a deterioration in the article, more down to me looking beyond the narrow technical issues which I read it for the first time. So apologies for not raising this earlier. But I am not happy with either the lead section or the quality of the prose for an FA.
Lead section is a bit too short; the first paragraph is mainly about the class, and the second is almost entirely about her career.
" During the Battle of Dogger Bank, Princess Royal scored only a few hits, although one was the hit that crippled the German armoured cruiser Blücher, which was then caught and sunk by the concentrated fire of the British battlecruisers." Needless repetition of 'hit', unclear whether 'hit' or 'Blucher' was caught and sunk, and basically combining 2 ideas in 1 sentence
"...to be as superior to the new German battlecruisers of the Moltke class as the German ships were to the Invincible class." comparison of comparison is uncomfortable.
"Princess Royal commenced initial trials on Polperro's measured mile"; who was Polperro and what was Princess Royal aiming to discover about his measured mile? To an uninformed reader it's not obvious what this means...
"They turned south at full speed at 11:35 a.m. when the British light forces failed to disengage on schedule and the rising tide meant that German capital ships would be able to clear the bar at the mouth of the Jade Estuary." I found this sentence confusing, even though I actually know what it means!
These are only examples - I think the article needs serious work on this point before it is ready to be an FA. Regards, The Land (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ordered both Roberts and Tarrant from Amazon a few days ago ... not for this article, but they're the 2 main sources for this one. I need to consult the sources and check with Sturmvogel, and I also need to get a sense from you (The Land) of how much fiddling you'd like to see in the article ... are we talking about 4 sentences, 14 sentences, or redoing the whole thing? There are a lot of different opinions we need to respect simultaneously, and if you want a major rewrite, I'm not sure how easy that's going to be; see for instance the A-class review that I linked in my support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The structure of the article is fine (or will be if the lead is re-written). But each paragraph needs to be be re-read with the aim of improving the prose style. So my concerns are 1a (and 2a) of WP:WIAFA. This is an unusual objection for me, as normally with warships (which are one of my specialist areas) I am picky about sources, comprehensiveness, and facts and less picky about style... The Land (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images All images are in the public domain with appropriate licenses. Alt text is present on one image but not the others. For the sake of uniformity either add or remove alt text accordingly. Brad (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not following that, I haven't been keeping up. Is there something wrong with the alt text? If not, why would removing good alt text improve an article? - Dank (push to talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently alt text is no longer a requirement for FA. Using that guideline I'm saying it should either be there on all images and not at all. Personally I think alt text is a good idea. Brad (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate writing alt text, but I don't think that there's any real need here to be consistent about that given that most readers don't use it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One Comment
Janes Fighting Ships of WWI (pg. 44) says that .....on trials, flames from the fore funnel rendered the fire controller station then over fore funnel on tripod, almost untenable. The article says that the fire controller station was added between 1915 and 1916. Both these facts could be correct, as the fire controller may have been removed after trials, to be re-fitted in 1915-16. I recommend either removing reference to the fire control director from the Wartime Modifications section, or keeping it and validating this issue. Further, looks good and reads well! BZ Farawayman (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Janes, as usual, has it about half-right and this is better explained in the class article. Both Lion-class ships were designed with the foremast, and the spotting top, originally positioned aft of the forward funnel. However, Princess Royal was modified before completion as the positions of the foremast and funnel were swapped. The original problem wasn't with the fire-control director, but rather everyone and everything in the spotting top was choking or overheating in the funnel gases, which were not actually flames.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it is ready. I addressed all the concerns of the previous FAC, and I feel it now meets all FA requirements. It has received a peer review and an extensive copy edit, both of which were requested at the previous FAC. William S. Saturn (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you are saying. The file is a non-free logo used for identification, as is customary in all campaign articles.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's these accursed templates again. What I do, with organisations such as CBS, is to put them in the publisher field and ignore work field. It is CBS, not its parent, that gives the citation authority. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Online sources are reliable when they are posted by established organisations or recognised experts in their field, or when they have backing or approval from such organisations. I don't think that applies in this case. It might be thought that your use of this material lends undue weight to what looks like a highly partisan blog. On a similar point, I seem to have missed this (ref. 53), which is a screaming rant. You use it to cite Jim Steinman's supposed endorsement of Barr. What the blog actually says, amid the frantic cursing, is: "I'm still voting for Bob Barr, though I hope with every breath that Obama wins." Is that an endorsement? More to the point, should an encyclopedia use such sources in support of its content? Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because a number of helpful Wikipedians have improved its quality through content edits, peer review, and copyediting. - Wallanon (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I noticed this one leave the WP:GAC board and took a quick look to see why it was bypassing GAC and going straight for FAC. The article has certainly received a peer review lately, but at a quick glance, I see many issues that would cause problems at GAC, let alone FAC. For one, there are many unreferenced statements. Secondly, there are sources such as "2001live.com" that are not reliable. The captions for the images are not encyclopedic. I don't have time to do a more thorough review tonight, but if other reviewers feel it merits a run, I will gladly go over it again in a couple of days. But as it stands, I cannot support this article. – VisionHolder « talk »22:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, don't have much time, but in terms of the image captions, I strongly recommend making them more informative. "Adelita Bar in Tijuana, Mexico" is not an adequate caption. Why is the image even included in the article? Is that strip club even mentioned in the article? If so, maybe include a cited statement about it. Other image captions read, "Go-go dancers performing on stage.", "Dancer performing on stage in Brazil.", and "Customer tipping after a dance." These are very uninformative. For the latter, you could say, "Customers typically tip by tucking currency into the dancer's waistband following the dance." At the very top of the article, the first image caption could read, "Strip clubs advertise full nude entertainment to attract customers."... or something like that. I'll continue offering advice as I find time, but please start by revisiting all of your image captions and try to make them more informative to the reader. – VisionHolder « talk »00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read this one for the article (ahem). I see a large number of uncited statements. I'd withdraw this or dress it up in a hurry. It's got potential though. Love to see Raul put to the choice about whether to put this on the main page ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If somebody has a little time, could they please do a quick run through and flag the statements they feel need a citation? The sources are out there, but the article is a little long and I might be too close to it at this point to spot the ones I haven't already cited. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A very quick example: "This can result in clubs opening in areas with looser restrictions, and ossibly in areas with higher incidences of felony crimes such as robbery, aggravated assault, and others. Elsewhere in North America, the Zona Norte red light district in Tijuana, Mexico has a number of legal brothels which are modeled on strip clubs and feature U.S.-style striptease performed by its prostitutes." Aside from the misspelling "ossibly", what's the source for this statement? Since this appears to be one of your first articles, I suggest reviewing WP:CITE if you haven't do so already. – VisionHolder « talk »23:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Zona Norte being a red light district is general knowledge, but I just found three references to cite. One of them is a book by an ASU professor that cites two well known TJ strip as clubs as brothels. The zoning statement was just clarified and cited using a Seattle Times article from 2006. Thanks for pointing these out. Since this is not a scientific article, much of the sourcing is going to be from news and verifiable public interest material. I am looking for academic writing where I can, though. The academic and ethnographic literature unfortunately has shown a tendency to "clean up" accounts of the business, possibly in the name of discretion, so other recent sources needed to be used. Appreciate the link to WP:CITE, and will make a note to fix the links my edits inherited from other content. - Wallanon (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC) Updated: Wallanon (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Removed disputed reference to the 2001 Odyssey business website and struck the entire line referring to its specific service offering as an example. It was not a critical point. Left the statement referring to live video feeds from strip clubs and replaced 2001 Live inline reference with a 2007 book citation. - Wallanon (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will work on the captions, and will take a look at some of the current featured articles for examples. Thanks. - Wallanon (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: good on you for taking on such a vandal-magnet, but unfortunately I don't think this is FA quality just yet. The organization of the article is rather poor - the ToC is absolutely huge, with several subsections that are only a paragraph long. More citations are needed, and some are still unreliable. The "See also" section needs to be cut down. I would strongly recommend that you hit GAN first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This mention of "poor" organization in the article is the first time it has been raised as an issue. I would be interested in other editors' thoughts on alternatives. The TOC is now limited to 3 levels. For those who have taken the time to scan the article, anywhere they feel a citation is needed a {{fact}} would be appreciated. And if a reference seems weak it is easy enough to replace it with a {{fact}} like someone did a few days ago. If I disagree strongly I would discuss here or on the talk page. The article was already put up for GA review (archive), with all of the suggestions addressed. -Wallanon (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just read through this article, or most of it, in passing and saw it was up for FAC. I see it isn't going to pass but I have some comments that might help. The first thing that popped out to me was its organization and size (over 128k). I feel like I could open a strip club anywhere now and run it well. For organization, I would put some history upfront first like in other articles. Maybe work the "Historical evolution" section up to the top. The intro is also long as well. Each main section in the article could be broken out into its own article to shorten it up a lot. If you shrink the article down around the 64k standard, it will be easier to work with.--NortyNort (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is getting a little lengthy. The version of the article I originally submitted for GA might be half the size, and most of the content since has been responding to (quite helpful) feedback. My slightly longer response to why it's organized that way is it was structured to make it easier to move content into standalone articles if the consensus was to split. I'd have to do a little more thinking on how to push the history forward without moving everything else too far down, but can understand why people might want to see it near the top. The reservation I had with putting it upfront was that a good printed page of it was about striptease independent of strip clubs. How to get the length down without losing information is an open question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. - Wallanon (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the "types of entertainment" section, the paragraph beginning with "Most clubs have a dancer rotation where each..." all the way until "Peep shows..." later is more of an operational thing rather than a type of entertainment. Maybe you could place that elsewhere or cut it out. It is a large article and I wish I had time to help more but just try to compress things. I see where you are coming about strip tease and strip club in the history. In my opinion as a reader, I like to see the history first in any article, even if it is small. Other than that, I think the organization of the sections is good. There aren't too many business FACs so I see it is tough. The one FAC that I could compare the organization, etc. to is Scouting.--NortyNort (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for flagging the statements you would like to see cited with {{fact}}. I may not be able to get through all of the mark ups today, but will resolve each of them by citing a reference or editing out the disputed content. - Wallanon (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The broken links are now fixed. One of the articles I know was valid when I checked it, but is now deleted from the original source. The archive for the Bada Bing article is on a site that is blocked, so I replaced it with the CBS ref. The other article was still on the original site but had been moved. Thanks for pointing these out. The dab pages are a little trickier in some cases because the definition is there on the page but they don't have a standalone article. I have started linking to Wiktionary so I can check to see it they have definitions there. - Wallanon (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's quite a few fact tags on here, but I found one to be totally bogus on a cursory glance, I'm guessing that goes for some others as well. The article is (arguably justifiably?) huge and really out of my expertise, so I can't really comment much else on it. RN07:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for doing the spot check. I will go through each {{fact}}. After a quick scan, some of them I know are cited a line or two over since I didn't want to cite behind every sentence. That doesn't mean they can't be, I just opted not to initially. Some of the older content I didn't write (or moved from other articles) may take a little longer to track down. I'll need to look at them in more detail to determine which is which. - Wallanon (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because because it has long-met the criteria and qualifications specified in order to become such. This article definetly makes the bar. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—no dab links, but dead external links to http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3393_1.html, http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3397_1.html, http://www.nacional.com.uy/mvdcms/uc_3395_1.html, http://www.oncecaldas.com.co/his_titulos.php?UID_ANO=ANOWW0000004 . Also, the lead contains a dangling modifier ("Despite being a South American competition, ..."), peacock language ("gaining the attention of 135 nations worldwide"), and excessive references (references in the lead are rarely needed, but putting the same ref on five consecutive sentences is even worse, especially when the facts sourced are as controversial as the tournament format). In the first few paragraphs of the "History" section, there are grammatical errors ("no least thanks"), redundant wording ("back in the 1930s"), and non-sequitur pieces ("a healthy sporting rivalry ... Episodes of violence are not rare"). Further down, it's full of, often unsourced, high praise—"historic justice", "sublime", "best ... in the world" ("considered by some", of course), "dazzled", "great", "outstanding". I don't doubt you've done a lot of good work on the article, and perhaps soccer aficionados (I'm keeping in style with the article) will even like the prose, but it is not what I would expect of a neutral, disinterested encyclopedia. Ucucha18:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a lot of the grammar has been fixed and the dead links are gone. But the rest is completely sourced. Of course, you must know Spanish to read the links. Jamen Somasu (talk) 19:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't, at least in part: the piece that labels Osvaldo Zubeldía a "great coach" does not have a source. But even when the sources do use some of the labels the article gives, that does not mean Wikipedia may do the same; this is an encyclopedia, not a sports review, and the appropriate styles for the two are not the same. Ucucha19:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:FN (I fixed the footnote placement), and WP:MSH remove all of the "A" and "The" from the section headings unless the heading is a proper noun). Also, please put spaces after the language icons-- they are running into the text. I can find no indication that futbolonline.com (the most cited source in the article) is a reliable source; if this FAC is still here next week, I'll check the rest of the Spanish-language sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything you pointed out is fixed and edited. As far as this "non-reliable" sources, I would like to see which of the references I pointed out are "non-reliable". I would like to see what is "reliable". Not everything can go through ESPN, after all. Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed some of the wording and eliminated what can be ommited. But people such as René Higuita, Ever Hugo Almeida, Pelé, Zico, Carlos Bianchi, Telê Santana and more, are widely considered legendary and iconic figures in the competition. I don't throw those phrases around without strong merit. As far as the "XY would go on to beat Z the following year" thing, I only used that, and anything similar, once, buddy. I don't know about you but that is far from being repetitive. As far as the books not quoting pages, let me tell you that the books I put up as reference makes numerous mentions of Estudiantes being a "small" club in Argentina. As a matter of fact, one of those books dedicates itself to talk about it. I have put page numbers wherever suited and necessary. Jamen Somasu (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are talking about is unsupported attributions which is not the case here. I have supported everything I have mentioned. Look, don't take it the wrong way. Perhaps football, or soccer if you want to call it that, is not your most popular thing. If you want, you can step down from this FAN. I simply think you don't know enough about the subject at hand (don't worry...you are not the only one).
I say that because when I see crap like this get promoted with, which I used as a base to this article, it just make me start thinking of several things.
Oppose – Agree with the concerns that have already been raised, and I don't believe this is ready to be here yet. Just seeing a sentence like this confirms in my mind that the prose needs work on both quality and neutrality: "It proved to be historic justice for many (even today) due to Penarol's great contributions to the creation of the tournament, but the Copa Libertadores did not receive international projection until its third edition, which was swept through the sublime football of a Santos team led by Pele, considered by some the best club team in the world of all times." Work is needed throughout, and there is too much to do during the course of an FAC. I'd suggest taking this to peer review. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because I have a link right next to that sentence backing it up and it is non other than Jose Carluccio, a highly respected football historian in the South American continent. Regardless, you can go on google and seach ""justicia histórica" (historic justice), "Peñarol" and 1960" at once. This is very well known in South America: I bet my left testicle that most fans believe Peñarol's victory in 1960 was historic justice due to their contributions in bringing the Cup to life. And it is a fact, not merely opinion (which I gave reference to) that the tournament didn't get much attention, even among the participating leagues, until the Santos of Pele beat the crap out of everyone in 1962. After that, everyone took it seriously.
As I have said before, the very viability of this nomination is suffering not so much from the article itself, but because there is very little interest in the subject at hand. That is the main reason I took it off the GA nomination page: it was there for two months picking up dust. As a test, I put a somewhat related article for GA nomination as well (one I knew had no chance of being considered a GA) and it was picked and denied GA status in less than a week. I don't blame you: it is a non-English subject. That means that most of the references are coming from a different language, people you have never heard of, and sites that you had no idea existed.
I am nominating this for featured article because the article has been thoroughly peer reviewed by Brianboulton and passed as a Good Article by Miller17CU94 with improvements at each stage. I firmly believe that this article now meets the high FA standards. Dravecky (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional oppose since there are no free images in the article, and I think the rationale for including the program cover fails FUC 8. Daniel Case (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have recently obtained (through the miracle of eBay) an unused ticket from World Bowl I which I can photograph and upload. It is entirely text, no logos, and the photograph will be my own work but I'll confess that I'm slightly fuzzy on precisely how "free" this image would be. If it's satisfactory, it can be easily added to this article (and the World Bowl one, of course). - Dravecky (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – Nice to see something from before my time, as I love the sports history articles that come through here. Looked at the prose, and found a few things to point out in the piece I read, which unfortunately doesn't include the financial issues. They shouldn't take too long to work out, though.
"The team was owned by William 'Bill' Putnam doing business as Alabama Football, Inc." Very minor point, but there should probably be a comma after Putnam.
NFL should be spelled out, with the initials following in parentheses.
Franchise history: When was Putnam awarded the franchise? If that could be found, it would make some of the upcoming facts, in particular the "they had already invested" bit, more clear.
Don't think two CFL links are needed in this section.
Reference 10 doesn't say anything about color commentators; it only mentions Matson.
First half: Try not to start sentences with number like "40,367 fans sat through rain...".
"in their first nationally-televised game." Don't think the hyphen in here is needed.
"with 44,732 fans packing Soldier Field." Can it really be said that the stadium was "packed" when there would have been at least 10,000 empty seats?
Second half: There are a few things similar to above comments, including a number beginning a sentence and a few repeat links for teams linked in the last section.
UPI should probably also be spelled out.
Don't think Civic Stadium and PGE Park both need links when they go to the same place, and it's made clear in the prose that they are one and the same.
Post-season: "thus winning the World Bowl. The World Bowl...". The World Bowls are a little close together for my personal tastes. Can they be placed further apart? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Wikipedia is currently collaborating with the British Museum to improve articles about the museum's artifacts (see Wikipedia:GLAM/BM), with Witty lama as the BM's first "Wikipedian in Residence". I'm happy to put forward Cyrus cylinder for consideration as a possible featured article. I've been working on it for about two years now, but have done a lot of work on it lately to get it up to FA standard. Since this is the fifth most-read article we have on a BM artifact, and the artifact itself is one of the most celebrated and historically significant items in the BM's collection, getting this article to FA status would be a significant benefit for all parties. Ideally I'd like to get it to FA before 12 October this year, the anniversary of Cyrus's conquest of Babylon. I'd be grateful for views on whether it meets the FA criteria. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's great to see this article come up here and I do hope that I can get some of the British Museum curators from the relevant department to give the article a look-over as well. But! The fact of the collaboration with the British Museum does not mean that I or anyone else should be "going easy" on this candidacy. In fact, the reverse - because we have access (to a certain degree at least) to the British Museum curators then this article should be a higher quality than normal. The only "special treatment" that this article deserves is more scrutiny, not less. WittyLama00:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liam, I totally agree. I've tried to be as comprehensive and academically rigorous as possible in writing this article. If at all possible, I'd like to demonstrate that Wikipedia can produce articles that are as good as anything that would come out of an academic institution like the BM. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I won't be delivering a final "verdict" on this as I have my own BM-related nom at Peer Review & intended to come here shortly [now above]. Both articles qualify for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize, which should be made clear, & I want to avoid any suspicion of log-rolling or log-jamming. But I have some points:
Imo the location of an artifact should be always in the first para, as early as possible; "now in the British Museum" will fit nicely at the end of the first sentence.
The lead is a tad short perhaps; rather more summarizing the text could be added, although I know that is the next section.
I've expanded the lead to give more info on the text, the dispute over the "human rights charter" interpretation and the link with the repatriation of the Jews. -- ChrisO (talk)
The first para of the "Interpretations" is one sentence long, which is deprecated. It has 8 citations at the end, although pretty much the same thing has already been said and cited in the lead. This is where citation templates take us! I'm sure in this case Johnbod's Law does not in fact apply, but it does not look good. If they are all really needed, just bundle them up into a one-off old style reference.
I've split up the sentence and added more info, turning it into a proper paragraph. I know the long list of citations is unwieldy but unfortunately I think it's necessary - there are, regrettably, political reasons why it's needed, so Johnbod's Law is accurate enough in this case. (I'll elaborate further shortly). -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've rolled the three unique refs. Each of the others is used multiple times throughout the article, so I don't think rolling them up works. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not make clear what I think is the case, that the cylinder was deliberately laid into the foundations of the building as we still sometimes deposit things, and was never intended to be seen again.
Ok, but Cylinder of Nabonidus is linked in the main text, so should not be in "See also". Actually it is not linked in the caption for the picure of it, and none of the picture captions (I think) repeat links in the text, which is contrary to the usual style one sees, although Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions) does not seem to cover this. Incidentally, in the caption "Former United Nations Under-Secretary General Shashi Tharoor and filmmaker Cyrus Kar with replica of the Cyrus Cylinder at UN headquarters, New York..." I'd link to United Nations Headquarters but not "New York", especially as that link goes to the state not the city. Just to be clear, I'd have that as "at UN headquarters, New York ..." not saying "City" either, this not being a US article. Johnbod (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken out the Nabonidus "See also" link. I dislike linking from image captions; it's not required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (captions), as you rightly note, so I've generally avoided it in this and other featured and good articles that I've written. I've replaced the UN picture you mention and amended the caption along the lines that you suggested. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first two BM link references in "other sources" should I think be rephrased, and probably explained, to clarify that one is to the "Highlights" (very short) and the next to the "collection database" (very long, and also containing a full translation of the text)
I'm not sure about the third BM source, the placard or caption (not an "inscription") on the display. These came up for discussion in the Inner German border FAC. It could change at any moment, & then there would be no record of it. If it really must be used, and surely all this must be covered elsewhere, I'd try to get a photo onto Commons as a permanent record - I think the German ones had this in some cases.
You're right that the info is covered elsewhere, but that would not be from a BM source. Its value is that it shows how the BM explains the cylinder to the public. I can get a photo easily enough. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not I think explain that the full text of the cylinder is available online. As well as pointing this out in the refs, I think it should be said in the text as well, especially if a fake version is also online.
In "The text" section, I've added a line: "Several versions of the full translated text of the cylinder are available online (see "Editions and translations" below)." -- ChrisO (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I had missed that. I've capitalised it throughout but I can't move the article to that title, as there's a redirect in place which needs to be deleted first. I've flagged the redirect for speedy deletion to allow the move. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else deleted it, I've moved the article to the Version with Capital Letters, moved the FAC to the new matching title and sorted out everything else. Let me know if I've missed anything. BencherliteTalk17:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment - Neil McGregor's full job is given three times, which seems excessive. I realize people won't keep his name in their head over a long article, but "of/for the British Museum" might be used later. Johnbod (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these appear to be in foreign languages: Berger (French), Schaudig (German), Wiesehoter (German), Weissebach (German). In each case the language needs to be stated.
Free et al lacks publisher location
Shabani et al lacks publication date and publisher location
I've modified the title as "Iran : journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies" and added an ISSN, which I think should clear up any confusion. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other sources
The first two retrieval dates are inconsistently formatted.
Whilst this seems extreme at first blush, it is correct that neither of these images have Non-free media usage statements justifying their inclusion in this article. As per the FAC rules: "Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." So, although these images are indeed good illustrations to the article, I don't imagine that they would greatly harm the article if they were removed. Where is the Nabonidus relief? Is there another photo available? WittyLama21:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should be able to get a pic of the relief on Friday. I'm fairly sure it's on display. As for the UN image, I'll write up a fair use rationale and post it here for review. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Babylon 1829.jpg - The source for this image is unclear. Is it from a book? Library or museum archive? We need to give enough information about it that a user could find it. Also, the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years", so we need a death date for the author.
I've added more sourcing info for this image. However, I don't think we need a death date for the author. The book was published in 1829 - 181 years ago. I think it's safe to assume the author died more than 70 years ago. You can find the entire book on Google Books [39]. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Cyrus cylinder extract.png - Please include full bibliographic information for the source (as if it were being cited in a bibliography). Also, the license claims "life of the author plus 70 years", so we need a death date for the author.
Same file name. There were different files on the English Wikipedia and Commons called File:Nabonidus.jpg. The en.wp version, which lacked a FUR, has been deleted. The Commons version is a Creative Commons work. If you click on the link you should now see the Commons version. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tharoor and Cyrus Cylinder.jpg - This image has no fair use rationale for the Cyrus Cylinder article, so I cannot make a determination on its validity as a fair use image. Please add a WP:FURG. I will say that I can't see a "purpose of use" off the top of my head that will justify the use of this image, but I can be persuaded.
I'm not convinced that this fair use image is necessary. The purpose of use needs to describe why it is necessary for the reader to see the image. Generally, we include fair use images only when it would be impossible to convey something in words. What is beyond words in this image? Awadewit (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to striking this oppose as soon as these issues are resolved. I'm reading the article now and I am fascinated by the cylinder - very interesting stuff! I'll post a full review soon. Awadewit (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (Note: I am not competing for the Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/Featured Article prize.) This is such an interesting article and object. Clearly, the narratives about it are complex, but the article is generally structured well and makes them clear.
It is a clay cylinder, broken into several fragments, on which is written a declaration in Akkadian cuneiform script - Could we add a phrase describing the declaration?
The lead feels a little long and overly detailed to me. I noticed that someone above asked for more to be added to the lead, however, I feel now we have a bit much. For example, do we really need all of the following: The Babylonian king Nabonidus was defeated in battle by the Persians and was deposed by Cyrus, who replaced him as ruler of Babylonia. The text on the cylinder commemorates the Persian victory and praises Cyrus's kingly virtues, listing his genealogy as a king from a line of kings, in contrast with the low-born Nabonidus. The deposed king is denounced as an impious oppressor of the people of Babylonia. The victorious Cyrus is portrayed as having been chosen by the chief Babylonian god Marduk to restore peace and order to the Babylonians. The text asserts asserts that Cyrus was welcomed by the people of Babylon as their new ruler and entered the city in peace. It appeals to Marduk to protect and to help Cyrus and his son Cambyses. It exalts Cyrus's efforts as a benefactor of the citizens of Babylonia who improved their lives, repatriated displaced peoples and restored temples and cult sanctuaries across Mesopotamia. It concludes with a description of the work of Cyrus in repairing the city wall of Babylon, in which he found a similar inscription by an earlier Babylonian king. - Could this be shortened to: The Babylonian king Nabonidus was deposed by Cyrus. The text on the cylinder commemorates this Persian victory, praises Cyrus's kingly virtues, portrays him as having been chosen by the chief Babylonian god Marduk to restore peace and order to the Babylonians, and exalts Cyrus's efforts as a benefactor of the citizens of Babylonia.
That's pretty much what it originally said before I expanded it following Johnbod's comments. I feel I'm in a bit of a lose-lose situation here. You want a short description, Johnbod wants a long description. Which way do I turn? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Cyrus Cylinder" is always capitalized, but when the "cylinder" is referred to by a single word, "cylinder" is not capitalized. I'm wondering - since we are referring to a specific cylinder, should it be capitalized?
having apparently broken apart in antiquity - How do we know when it broke?
It was found in several pieces. Basically it broke apart some time after it was buried. The British Museum attributes this to the faulty way in which the cylinder was made, and I gather the soil of Babylon is not very conducive to preservation (it has lots of nitre in it, which makes clay objects brittle). -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first three paragraphs of the "Description" are awkwardly structured. The restoration is mentioned before the description of how the cylinder was made, for example. I would suggest this order: 1) Description of physical object as it may have looked in antiquity, including dating 2) description of how the object was made in antiquity 3) Damages during burial and excavation; 4) Preservation and restoration efforts; 5) Description of physical object now, including location.
Although it was written for a Persian king, the Cyrus Cylinder reflects a Mesopotamian tradition that was already over two thousand years old. Newly-crowned kings of Babylon would make public declarations of their own righteousness when beginning their reigns, often in the form of declarations that were deposited in the foundations of public buildings - Why does this statement have so many citations? It is unsightly and this is not a controversial statement.
Unfortunately it is an extremely controversial statement - not for historians but for Iranian nationalists, who have caused a lot of problems with this article in the past. (I should add that that was some time ago - the article has been stable for a long time now.) The number of citations here reflects that dispute, essentially to make the point that this is not a fringe viewpoint among historians but is in fact the consensus view. I am however looking at merging some of the citations per Johnbod's suggestion above, to bring the number down to four or five. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should cite as many sources as you feel necessary, but not show a cab rank of citations on the face of the article, which looks awful. Just roll them all up into a custom note, which saves people having to chase them down individually if they actually want to see them. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot say with much confidence whether or not the article is comprehensive, but I have read about this cylinder is ancient history textbooks. What I read in those textbooks, I read here, so, in my opinion, a basic threshold of comprehensiveness is being met. I can't say more than that. Since we have experts from the British Museum working with us right now, perhaps we could get an expert to look the article over for that particular criteria. Other than the few concerns I listed and image issues, I think the article is well-written and well-organized and I look forward to supporting it soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll read over and jot some queries below. My only COI at present is an interest in seeing BM articles improved...unless they started growing banksias in a British Museum conservatory...Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...document of the 6th century BC that is now in the collections of the British Museum. - I like "document of the 6th century BC that is now housed in the British Museum." - in that it sounds more elegant.
I notice it's also against "in the collections of". I've reworded this bit to say simply "in the British Museum". -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead, I think paragraph two may be a little over-detailed.
"reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms". - would be good to de-quote this. The prose as such is unremarkable to warrant keeping the exact wording.
near the Arab village of Jumjuma or Jimjima - aren't/weren't they all Arab villages? (in which case "Arab" is redundant)
Not at all - Iraq was and is an ethnically diverse country. Don't forget the Arabs are relative latecomers in historical terms. There were also Kurdish, Turkmen, Chaldaean and Assyrian villages in the vicinity. The man who excavated the Cyrus Cylinder was himself an Assyrian. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:The Mesopotamians deposited a wide variety of items, including animal sacrifices, stone tablets, terracotta cones, cylinders and figures. - if we're doing serial commas, one is needed here.
I try to avoid serial commas - I'm writing to the standard of British English, which generally deprecates the use of serial commas. At least, that's the way I was taught to write. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Older Mesopotamian royal inscriptions bear striking similarities to the Cyrus Cylinder - I would have thought "The Cyrus Cylinder bears striking similarities to older Mesopotamian royal inscriptions" (?)
You might want to consider renaming The Cyrus Cylinder and the British Museum section - exhibit history? MOS suggests article name should not be in heading.
Overall - I think it is well on the way and am close to supporting. I am still pondering about the prose - overall good but wondering if there is some repetition in places. I will take another look tomorrow and ask some others. Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - this bit - I am wondering whether we've laboured the point a bit here:
The text is a royal building inscription, a genre which had no equivalent in Old Persian literature. It illustrates how Cyrus co-opted local traditions and symbols to legitimize his control of Babylon.Amélie Kuhrt, a professor in the history of the Near East at University College London, comments that the text's importance lies in how Cyrus used local traditions to legitimize his conquest of Babylon.
why do we need bolded bit as it is stated again a sentence later?
Also para 2 of the Similarities with other royal inscriptions reiterates the point, with the quote of Kuhrt - I think this can be worked into the above bit too.
Here again - we have the same phenomenon spelt out twice - surely this can be folded together somehow? I would have done it myself but am unsure which reference geos with what. It just comes across as somewhat labouring the point:
Emphasis is placed on the fact of Cyrus's peaceful entry into Babylon in implicit contrast with previous conquerors, notably the Assyrian rulers Tukulti-Ninurta I, who invaded and plundered Babylon in the 12th century BC, and Sennacherib, who did the same thing 150 years before Cyrus conquered the region. The massacre and enslavement of conquered peoples was common practice and was explicitly highlighted in statements by conquerors. In contrast, the text of the Cyrus Cylinder presents Cyrus as entering Babylon peacefully and being welcomed by the population as a liberator. Johannes Haubold notes that the text portrays Cyrus's takeover as a harmonious moment of convergence between Babylonian and Persian history; not a natural disaster but the salvation of Babylonia.
Cyrus's policies toward subjugated nations have been contrasted to those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, who had treated subject peoples harshly; he permitted the resettling of those who had been previously deported and sponsored the reconstruction of religious buildings. - in para 3 of scholarly views - we have been told this, abbreviating and including in hte next sentence would make for crisper more interesting prose.
Overall, nearly there - these are the most obvious examples of labouring the point. Other folks might find some but I will support once these are addressed. Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reasoning: Article fails to mention new development mentioned by the British Musuem [40]. "An important discovery has very recently been made at the British Museum in the form of two pieces of cuneiform tablet that cast light on the famous Cyrus Cylinder that is sometimes described as the first Declaration of Human Rights." [41]. Such new development and news are not reflected in the article. So the article which is on ancient history is outdated. It would be better to work on other BM articles until these recent interesting finds (specially these two new tablets) are discussed by scholars. It would be better to have a featured article when these two new tablets are studied in more details by scholars. Here is also another excerpt from another article [42]: "The British Museum’s (BM) loan of the Cyrus Cylinder to Iran has been delayed, because of a major discovery in London. Part of Cyrus the Great’s text has been found on two fragments of inscribed clay tablets.". And I also quote: "The BM’s Middle East keeper John Curtis describes the find as “very significant”, ". Note the article is dated 20 Jan, 2010. So the FA status of the article should be put on hold until these major discoviers are brought to light. How much this new information will change the content of the article is to be seen, however the article currently lacks these information about Cylinder. And it is possible the content of the article can change in the future based on these major discoveries. Of course, not every BM article will have major discoveries in 2010, however the present Wikipedia article not only lacks any information on these major discoveries, but it would be a shame to have an incomplete and possibly(?) soon to be outdated article as an FA.
Further Comment
I did note a small mention of this new find. However, the article claims it is the same text as the Cylinder. This newsreport contradicts this assertion: "One of the tablets clarifies a passage which could not be properly read on the Cyrus Cylinder. The other supplies part of the missing text (since a section of the cylinder was broken off before it was excavated).". [43]. I would say it is best to hold the article on the missing section of the Cylinder as well the new clarifications are understood. The news report also mentions: "The BM now plans to hold an international workshop to discuss the discovery with Iranian scholars, probably in June". So once these new discoveries are matured, the article should be renominated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.206.178 (talk • contribs)
The workshop was held this week, I believe. But I'm afraid your objections aren't realistic or reasonable. Things change all the time. That means articles get updated to reflect them. It does not mean that we have to put everything on hold until some new discovery has been properly documented. The Cyrus Cylinder has been the subject of 130 years' worth of scholarship, which the article reflects. We have to write articles on the basis of what is known now, not what someone might know at some unspecified future date. That's particularly so in this case, as it is likely to be months if not years before it is clear what the significance of the new fragments is. The article mentions the discovery of the new fragments in the final section, so it's up to date, and it can be updated further when more is known. I have, by the way, removed the two {{fact}} tags that you added to the article, as those lines are cited. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no reason to put the nomination on hold. Like many of our articles, it will become outdated over time, but that is not a good reason for withdrawal of the nomination. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. Whatever the "significance" of the find may turn out to be, it is hard to imagine that much would need altering in an article at this level of detail. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The newsreport indicates that the two fragments contain missing parts of the current cylinder[44]. This is not taken into account in this article. I quote: "One of the tablets clarifies a passage which could not be properly read on the Cyrus Cylinder. The other supplies part of the missing text (since a section of the cylinder was broken off before it was excavated)." This portion that it contains missing part of the cylinder is not reflected in the article.
Besides this there are two other issues:
1) the whole "human rights" controversy is onesided in the sense that it does not mention host of books written by non-Iranians[45][46] (wether Historians or not these sources need to be mentioned in the article for completeness sake as they are WP:RS and relate to the Cylinder.).
2)
It states in the article: "Conversely, the Persian kings could, and did, destroy the shrines of peoples who had rebelled against them.". I put a request for citation and it was removed. However the article needs to provide a concrete example of not Persian Kings, but of Cyrus the great destroying the "shrines of peoples". Barring a concrete example with this regard, such a controversial statement should be deleted. Either Cyrus destroyed shrines or did not. If he did, there should be concrete examples. if not, it should be removed.
3)
The portion on fake translation lacks notability. Only one reference and it seems undo weight with regards to the whole article.
4)
Article does not encompass 120 years of scholarship on the Cyrus Cylinder. While it does contain the view of some modern scholars, for completeness sake it must contain a summary view points of scholars between 1880 to 1980. Viewpoint of scholars at least in some of these periods regarding the cylinder should be summarized in a paragraph for completeness.
I think this (<ref name="BM-CC">British Museum: [[#BM-The Cyrus Cylinder|The Cyrus Cylinder]]</ref> ) is a wiki nono(self referernce) used four times.J8079s (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry this is a technical problem the one right below it works<ref name="BM-inscription">[[#BM-inscription|Inscription in the British Museum, Room 55]]</ref>. I would just fix it but I don't know how.J8079s (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article's been going through a few edits lately, so that probably broke it. I've fixed it now - thanks for reporting this problem. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat. The image gallery currently present in the first section is poor style IMV, those images (two maps, of different things, and one portrait) would be better as normal inline images. The gallery also displays funnily in my browser - two images on the top row and one on the bottom row but in the second column. If the gallery is removed, happy to support. (Declaration of interest: I am also involved with the British Museum collaboration project) The Land (talk) 14:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was using IE8 when I made that comment, let me check again... no, works fine in Chrome and IE8 on this computer. But still feel a gallery sin't the best way to present those images. The Land (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say that an editor who has never previously been involved with the article is attempting to edit-war some material into it and making accusations of "censorship". Fæ and I believe it is undue weight and it is redundant in any case, as it is already covered in a different section of the article. I would be grateful for outside views at Talk:Cyrus Cylinder#Undue weight problems. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The debate seems stale so I have suggested a RFC unless the proponent wishes to withdraw. RFC seems a heavyweight solution and I would encourage uninvolved contributors to chip in with their opinions rather than default to a dispute resolution process which might pointlessly delay any FA status. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good work. The one problem i've noticed so far is that the intro is too detailed and long; i think it was a good length at the start of the nomination. Also, despite being too long, it doesn't mention the dispute with the Iranian museum which is covered by a whole section in the article, kind regards Tom B (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am renominating this article after a previous FAC in March. Objections to the previous nomination over insufficient scientific discussion have been dealt with. The lorax (talk) 05:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know to exactly which links AnOddName is referring (I was working from the linkchecker tool, which doesn't show ref numbers), but I couldn't find any dead links; some had odd status codes, but all I checked did in fact lead to the right page. Ucucha06:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sources comments: There are a great many issues with the formatting of references. In particular:-
Publications should be correctly named, e.g. The New York Times, The Washington Post etc.
Print sources (journal, newspapers, magazines) should be italicised. Non-print sources (broadcasters, websites, professional bodies or other organisations) should not be italicised
A consistent policy on providing retrieval dates should be adopted. Some editors provide retrieval dates for all online sources; others provide them only in the case of non-print sources. Either policy is acceptable, but consistency is lacking at present.
Publisher information is often lacking
Formats need to be consistent.
Around half of the first 30 or so references require attention in regard to one or more of these matters. A glance through the list indicates the presence of many more similar cases. Please work through the list systematically, to ensure that every reference conforms with MOS requirements. I will complete a proper sources review when this has been done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 65 goes to the wrong page. I think you've inadvertently entered the url for the next reference.
Ref 43 contains a dead link to the doi system
Although progress has been made on sorting out italics and non-italics, there are still numerous fixes required. For example neither Grist nor Truthdig are print media sources, neither are Reuters, CNN or Fox News; none of these should be in italics. Bright Lights, on the other hand, is a journal. So are The Seattle Times and the Daily Mail, and all these should be italicised. It really is necessary to work through the list consistently, and get these correct; I haven't necessarily identified them all.
Commentleaning oppose changed to OpposeDincher (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC) I would like to see more on the criticism of the piece by Gore. I read some of it in the Governmental Reaction section of the article. Perhaps these could be placed together in a ==Criticism== section. Dincher (talk) 00:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment many people would argue that Al Gore's campaign to educate citizens about global warming. is not educating at all. Rather they would argue that Gore is playing on fears or worse. Dincher (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. Limbaugh and Hannity, regardless of how one feels about their politics, are very influential voices on this subject. I still would like to see a ==Criticism== section in this article. Dincher (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a specific criticism of AIT by Limbaugh and Hannity (just criticism directed at Gore); Glenn Beck though did produce a special as an alternative viewpoint to the movie, which I added to the article; hopefully that is what you were looking for.--The lorax (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment – Not to intrude on Brian's promised sourcing review, but it is worth noting that there is a dead link tag for reference 43. Might be worth the effort to double-check whether the DOI is correct. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media - The image of Al Gore should look into the text, it is implausible there is no free image of him looking to the left. File:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg does not significantly increase the users understanding, nor would it's loss be detrimental to the readers' understanding, I therefore oppose as the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3Fasach Nua (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no blanket allowance to any type of non free content, the policy is clear that non-free content must meet nfcc and this image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding, thus the article fails FA criteria Fasach Nua (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on File:Aninconvenienttruth.jpg. I'm sympathetic to Fasach Nua's view above; indeed, I respect his/her position on non-free content a great deal. However, current project consensus on promotional artwork—such as album covers, DVD box covers and theatrical posters—does usually come down on the side of allowing non-free artwork for "identification" of the subject where a free version is unavailable. I will make no comment here about my own view. I'll only say that I think wider community consultation is needed to overturn the current consensus, and as such, individual FACs such as this one are not the place to have the discussion. I recommend leaving this opposition respectfully unchallenged to allow subsequent reviewers to consider their own views on the matter. Best regards SteveT • C07:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because it's comprehensive, with plenty of detailed information on the actual storm, preparations for it, impact for each area affected, and aftermath of the hurricane. It is completely cited with under cite web formatting. In my biased opinion, I feel this article is ready to become the next Featured Article. Support. ... Qao-bou(talk)22:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Consulted or not, I don't particularly support someone who's edited the article twice (and only to further reading section I may point out) to nominate the FAC. He did not tag the talk page as usual, see its talk page. This is a delisted GA, and I think should really get a full out look over to meet project standards before becoming back here. Also:
"Rainfall was limited in Southeast Florida because of Andrew traveling through at fast speeds (between 20 and 25 mph forward speed)." is unsourced.
" By 1992 the demographics of central and south Florida had changed, with many residents relocated from areas in the Northeastern United States and Upper Midwest. Thus a significant portion of the Floridian population in 1992 had little or no direct experience of Florida's history of violent hurricanes, a fact that worried many forecasters at the time." - unsourced.
The Louisiana section is poorly put together, lots of broken paragraphs.
"Nearly one million residences were no longer eligible for coverage by any insurance agency. This led the Florida Legislature to create new agencies (the Joint Underwriting Association, the Florida Windstorm Underwriting Association and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund) to restore adequate insurance coverage." -unsourced
"Andrew's catastrophic damage spawned many rumors, including claims that hundreds or even thousands of migrant farm workers in south Dade County (now Miami-Dade County) were killed and their deaths were not reported in official accounts. An investigation by the Miami Herald found no basis for such rumors. These rumors were probably based on the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, when the deaths of migrant workers initially went uncounted, and were still debated at the time of Andrew." - unsourced
Florida in aftermath is cluttered to death, with maligned tables and photos. It also has a major
"The Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station was hit directly by Andrew. Over $90 million of damage was done, largely to a water tank and to a smokestack of one of the fossil-fueled units on-site, but the containment buildings were undamaged. The nuclear plant was built to withstand winds of up to 235 mph." - unsourced
Article deserves an all-over copyedit and scan.
Is background necesssary? We don't even use it mostly for Katrina. Andrew shouldn't be any different.
With all due respect, that isn't a very polite way to respond to a good-faith and indeed very accurate suggestion. I'm sure all WPTC editors appreciate your interest in this article, but it simply is not complete on the level that one of the most important tropical cyclones in history should be. Juliancolton (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also recommend withdrawing. I agree with JC, it's not complete or good enough for one of the most important hurricanes in history. However, if you want to work to get it up to par, I'd be happy to work with you, so long as we're not using the valuable resources of FAC while the article is under construction. --Hurricanehink (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the high standards of a featured article. This article is highly sourced with good sources and the article is very detailed with his swimming career. Michael Phelps made history in 2008 by winning eight gold medals in one Olympics and is considered the best swimmer in history. I have nominated this article before and have made improvements since then. For example, I've fix all of the references and they are all consistent. Most of the concerns were the references, but I don't think anyone should have a problem with it now. Philipmj24 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've addressed the 200 AD dates and the dab links. Can you tell me where those dead external links are? I don't know what you are talking about.Philipmj24 (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is considerable over-referencing, for example nine consecutive citations to p. 111 of Phelps's book in the "2002 Pan Pacific Championships" paragraph. A single citation at the paragraph's end would cover all of these. Check for similar cases of over-citation.
I note that a very high proportion of the book citations are to Phelps's own books. This looks like overuse of primary sources; it may look less so when the over-referencing mentioned above has been sorted out but it may still be a matter of concern.
What is the nature of ref 4? Is it a book, article or what? Publisher details are necessary.
It's The New York Times, not "New York Times". This title should be italicised, as should all print media sources, e.g. Sports Illustrated. Non-print sources should not be italicised.
The results citations need publisher information; in each case the publisher appears to be Omega. Why the sudden capitalisation in refs 59 to 67, and why the change of format from that used in the 2003 world championships citations? (See also ref. 115 for unexplained use of caps)
Brian, someone knowledgeable told me somewhere (can't remember where or when) that it's OK to use New York Times. Can't remember where, when or why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I think I've addressed all of your concerns. If I missed anything (I'm sure I missed something), plese tell me. As for your opinion on the books being overuse as primary sources, I don't think that is an issue. Most of the references I used from his books were results from swimming events I couldn't find on the internet.Philipmj24 (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of the Phelps citations, particularly the later ones, do not refer to race results. For example, all the citations in the "Allegations of drug use" section, and nearly all in the Ian Thorpe secttion, are to Phelps's books. These are the bothersome ones. Brianboulton (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Race results can be gotten independently in an easy manner at swiminfo.com of Swimming World Magazine (they list the news archive in chron order, so if you know when the meet was you just jump to that month in the archive) and the BBC website covers every Olympic and WC race result as well. And the BBC articles never get deleted or moved, even ten years after, which is great, as the links won't go dead. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Thorpe's youngest WR swim was the 200 free in 1999 Pan Pacs is false as he did a 3.41.83?? in the 400 free on the first night, and was therefore younger than the 200 the day after. If this is a mistake in Phelps' book it shows the value of checking multiple sources to weed out honest errors in sources
The article has gone into Phelps' habit of using naysayers to fire himself up, per the Thorpe stuff. Fair enough, but there are other notable examples where the sceptic made more negative/abrasive comments and where Phelps responded angrily
2003 Don Talbot said that Phelps hadn't achieved anything yet and then Phelps said he was motivated to make Talbot "eat his words"
2007 Cseh angered him
Cavic 2008 and 2009 in flamboyant manner, prompting wild celebrations/enraged screaming by Phelps
The comments by Thorpe were actually presented in a very mild and gentlemanly way and didn't provoke angry celebrations like the others
If I was to add every negative comment about Phelps, I would have to create a new article. This article to just to long as it is. Why only Thorpe? Because Thorpe and Phelps were seen as the biggest rivals when Thorpe was still a swimmer. So any comment Thorpe makes about Phelps, I think, warrants some kind of mention. The common person that doesn't follow swimming closely would probably be more interested in what Thorpe says. But overall I think the article is just to long to have what everyone has to say about him.Philipmj24 (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comment that Phelps' biggest direct rival was Thorpe. They only raced in the 200 free in 2004 and the 200 IM in 2003, which was a bit of a joke event for Thorpe, nor was the 200 free a focus for Phelps at the time. He has been in more head to heads with Cseh, Cavic and Lochte. Nevertheless, swimming is a very gentlemanly sport and there is rarely any trash talk; Thorpe's comment wasn't a trash talk, he was asked for a prediction and gave his opinion in a sedate and polite manner, whereas Cavic made flamboyant comments and Talbot very very sceptical although not brash, and those two did draw more angry comments by Phelps, whereas the Thorpe one just a chuckle and "I love disproving people who say things are impossible" type comment without obvious rancour. Obviously we disagree with length, given that Phelps is a giant of his field akin to Einstein, Newton, Julius Caesar, etc, the article is really on the leaner side, and also given your GA noms of Ian Crocker and Jessica Hardy with 1-line leads. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the comments Cavic made in detail. I've also mentioned what Talbot said (I really don't think we need to go into detail with that). I really disagree with your comment that this artice is "on the leaner side". That obviously isn't true. And I really hope just because I nominated Ian Crocker and Jessica Hardy for GA, that doesn't affect the outcome of this nomination. Also, I went through the article to weed out contractions. Please tell me if I missed any. Thank you.Philipmj24 (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Phil, I disagree that the article being lean "obviously isn't true". To be honest, the article gets boring with the abundance of results. AaroncrickTALK02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Reference quality leaves something to be desired, and the content is not yet there in my mind. I have all the respect in the world for anyone who is brave enough to try making an article on a high-profile active athlete featured, since this is a particularly difficult task, but I don't think this is FA material at the moment.
First of all, I see that three of the five references in Allegations of drug use are to Phelps' autobiography. I would expect to see much stronger sourcing for a section with such obvious BLP ramifications. For what it's worth, I don't remember such claims being widely distributed in the press at the time; the bong pipe incident was discussed much more in the media than any PED allegations (not that I think that should be expanded, because I don't).
In a related comment, I have questions in my mind as to whether this meets criterion 1c (well-researched). The vast majority of the references are to either his autobiography or Omega Timing, and there are fewer references from newspapers/magazines than I would expect for a modern athlete. It's not like it is hard to find information on Phelps, considering that so much has written on him by a variety of publications. Also, I'm surprised the Schaller book isn't used more, since that seems like it would be preferable to most of what is being used.
This has come up a couple of times and honestly I don't see a problem. I can't think of a better source than an autobiography written by Phelps himself.Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One example of my (and others') concerns about source usage comes in the second sentence, which has five citations. Among them is one to Phelps' book, which appears to be citing his greatness. Do you see how this could pose a problem?
Have you read the book? He is quoting other people, it is not his opinion. It says, "Castagnetti, the Italian coach who had stirred so much talk about the LZR, said I was 'undisputedly the greatest swimmer of all time.'" Now, if you actually read the book, you would of seen that posed no problem at all. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now for a few prose concerns. In the fourth paragraph of the lead, his World and American Swimmer of the Year Awards are fully listed out. It becomes heavy reading after a while, due to how many years are there. I believe some form of "have earned him x World Swimmer of the Year Awards and y American Swimmer of the Year Awards" would be an improvement.
In reading this, I find myself agreeing with Aaroncrick in that the article as a whole seems too result-heavy. Nice statistics on all of Phelps' major event performances are present, but any sort of a narrative on his career is sorely lacking. Personally I remember that before the 2008 Olympics there was much speculation as to how many gold medals Phelps would win; in fact, these expectations existed to a certain point in 2004. That is but one example of the kind of information that would lift this article to another level. If I go off and look at something like this, the difference is striking. Even though that is shorter than this article, I find it a more involving read.
He is a swimmer. The article should be about his swimming career. Which the article goes in detail about. Of course the article is going to be "result-heavy" because he has won fifty four international medals (9 times the amount of Evans). Peter Evans has won a total of 6 international medals. These are two totally different articles. Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2004 Olympic section looks small to me, considering that he did win the same number of medals as in 2008. It's about a quarter the size of the 2008 section. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing his 2004 and 2008 Olympic experiences is like comparing apples and peaches. Two totally different things. Just because he so happen to win the same amount of medals doesn't mean it has to be as long as it. There was a lot more going on in Beijing because of the abundance of world records, close swims, and controversy. Like Milorad Cavic and Alain Bernard.Philipmj24 (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I can not stress enough how important the Nobel Prize article is, there are thousands of articles linking to it and several readers every day. That is why I decided to bring it to FA status (perhaps a bad idea as my first one since it is a rather controversial topic). The last two nominations failed but since then it has gone through several copy-edits and a peer-review and I now think it is ready for FA status. Most images were reviewed in last nomination and I do not think any images has been added or changed since then. With your help I hope we can make it even better. Thank you, Esuzu(talk • contribs)18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Krugman's Nobel had some people arguing that it was left-wing bias but the reference given does not support this. Moreover, that should be distinguished from the accusations around the Peace Prize since they're awarded by completely independent committees. In any case, the rumblings in Krugman's case where marginal and given the astounding number of Chicago school of economics laureates, the most common complaint for the economics prize is precisely the opposite. So the sentence about left-wing bias cries for Krugman should be removed to avoid undue weight. Pichpich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - my concerns have been adequately addressed, and I feel that the article, though imperfect, now warrants support. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Comments - I completely agree with you about this article's importance, but I can't support it until some of the below concerns are addressed.
Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per MoS, section headings should avoid repeating the article title
I am aware, the only heading I can find is the "Nobel Prize during World War II" and naming it "During World War II" feels kind of awkward don't you think?
Why not just "World War II"?
That would work I guess. It got changed.
First sentence is slightly unclear - do you mean that the awards are bestowed for cultural and scientific advances, or is it bestowed by "committees for cultural and scientific advances"?
The latter. It is bestowed by by "committees for cultural and scientific advances."
Okay...I'm missing something, then. Can you reword the first sentence slightly?
I am sorry but I feel it is quite clear already. I asked some other people and they seem to agree with me. I am not sure how to rephrase it but I would welcome a suggestion.
Those are introductory paragraphs, although I know they are not optimal I am not sure how I could change it. Do you have any suggestion?
Some of the paragraphs are acceptable, though not optimal; others could be expanded, incorporated into other paragraphs, or removed wholesale where they repeat information in your "main" text
Fixed most of them. I did not remove the "The award process is sim..." in the "Award Process" section. Is that acceptable to have there alone or should I just place it under "Nominations"?
That's probably fine...however, what about the two short paragraphs in the lead?
I will expand them with more information. Especially the second paragraph in the lead could perhaps use more information.
MartinPoulter merged it. (Thank you) The lead is rather short but I feel it mentions the most important parts. Is it all right now or should I expand it? Esuzu(talk • contribs)14:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's just fine now, thanks
Don't stack images, especially ones that aren't the same width
Please specify which. Is it the "Recent laureates" images?
I was looking at "History"
Re-arranged slightly. Better now?
You've included some run-on sentences that should be broken up. For example: "Nobel wrote several wills during his lifetime, the last was written over a year before he died, and signed at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris on 27 November 1895"
Fixed the example you have given. Could you please specify the others?
Other examples:
In 1939 the Peace Prize was not awarded and 1940–42 no prize was awarded in any category, due to the occupation of Norway by Germany from 9 April 1940
Fixed.
The remaining members escaped persecution from the Nazis due to the Nobel Foundation stating that the Committee building in Oslo was Swedish property and thus a safe haven from the German Military which was not at war with Sweden
Fixed.
The article text does not discuss (or even mention, except in passing under "Controversies") the first awards in 1901 - seems like a prominent omission
I could write a new section in the History part called "The first prizes" or something. I will try to get to it as soon as possible.
Thanks very much! However, the section could use some copy-editing, and additional citations would be helpful
Copy-editing is nearly finished I think. Some things have been clarified etc. I provided an additional citation and think it should be enough now. They are good and reliable references. Esuzu(talk • contribs)19:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some general copy-editing needed - typos, grammatical errors - no blatant problems, but certainly not brilliant prose
I will check it through again. Although I am not good at checking what I have written myself, I tend to stare myself blind on it aand not notice anything. If you find any problems while viewing the article I would be grateful if you could either list them here or fix them.
What is the correct name for the Economics prize? Is the correct order Medicine or Physiology, or Physiology or Medicine?
The correct name is Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. But it is quite long and normally (even by the Nobel Prize page etc) referred to as the Economics Prize.
Elinor was the first woman to receive the Economics Prize - citation? Also, why is she being referred to by her first name?
Fixed.
Fix date for Szostak image
Done.
Is the banquet three courses or five?
The one in Stockholm is three and the one in Oslo is five.
You might specify that to avoid confusion
Isn't? I mean "After the award ceremony in Sweden a banquet at the Stockholm City Hall is attended by the Swedish Royal Family and around 1,300 guests. The banquet features a three-course dinner..." is quite clear that it is the Swedish banquet while "At the Nobel Peace Prize banquet the 250 guests, including the laureate and the King and Queen of Norway, are treated to a five-course meal." is quite clear that it is in Norway. I could change it to "Nobel Peace Prize banquet in Norway" would that help?
Yes, or you could move some of the information that appears only in the image caption into the main article text
Done, added it to the main text.
Author link for the image of Haber's diploma is broken
Fixed.
"Past winners of the Peace Prize were divided, some saying that Obama deserved the award, and others saying he had not yet earned it" - source?
Check licensing for Gandhi image - by my calculations, it could not have been PD in India in 1996, and therefore could not now be PD-US according to the current tag
Your calculations seems correct. Does "ie. as of 2010, works published prior to 1 January 1950 are considered public domain" help or does it needs replacing?
That means it is currently PD in India, but not necessarily in the US (at least not according to the US tag currently present), and since WP is based in Florida it must adhere to US licensing requirements (at least that's my understanding, although I'm no image expert)
It is now discussed in a Deletion review. But we probably won't be able to use it. I will try to replace it with another image.
Replaced!
The reference in the footnote should be in the same format as the ones in Notes
Done.
Ref 6: what is AFP?
What I can understand it is the author. Reformatted the ref.
You don't happen to know what it stands for?
To my knowledge it is Agence France-Presse. At least in Swedish newspapers it is common to just state that instead of an author in a short article. Should I just leave it out or keep it?
You could pipe it, would that work?
Sorry, now I feel a bit stupid but to my knowledge "pipe it" means something like "shut up". I am afraid I do not know what it means here. Could you please rephrase it?
In wiki-context, it means to link it internally while maintaining the abbreviation by writing [[Agence France-Presse|AFP]], which appears as AFP. See WP:PIPE
Oh, thank you for teaching me that! Might be useful. The piping is done.
Don't link the same term more than once or twice
I can not find any linked more than once (or in some cases twice). Could you be more specific?
Just from a quick glance, the Peace Prize is linked twice in the lead along, the Nobel Foundation is linked multiple times...there are several repeated links, too many to list here
I will look it through again. Meanwhile, the Nobel Foundation is only linked once in the text now. It is however linked several times in the references but that is as it should be right?
I have looked it through again and I think I found all that. If there are others please specify. I know there are a lot of wikilinks to the Nobel Foundation but that is in references. Esuzu(talk • contribs)19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 60: author?
It is only a interview and thus no really author as such. Should I use the one who conducted the interview? (Holger Breithaupt)
Yes. The current "author" (USA?) makes no sense as such
Fixed.
Ref 70: check formatting
Reformatted.
Be consistent in whether you put a period after an initial in references or not, and whether publisher is italicized or not (why is CBC italicized while Local is not, for example? Why is the Washington Post italicized sometimes but not always?)
I think I found the problem, it depends on if it is the publisher or the "work" it was published in. Should be done now. If there are any left please let me know.
Articles sourced to timesonline.co.uk: pick formatting - you've got both The Times and Times.
I hope this is fixed now.
Yes, but either list location for these or not
From on now location is consistently not used.
Ref 120: author should be listed last name first
It is, Levinovitz is the last name.
Um, no...Ref 120 is listed under "Elizabeth Day"
Done.
Ref 124: missing citation details
Reformatted, ok now?
No, details still missing
Must have looked at the wrong again. Fixed it now.
Refs 125, 128, 135: date formatting
Done. Formatted some other I could find as well.
What makes Ref 126 a reliable source? Also, author should be listed last name first
Last name is already listed first, Kirsch is the last name. Not sure what you mean, there should be no problem with a an article from Slate, it is published by The Washington Post Company which for me is a rather serious company. Also the writer Adam Kirsch seem very reliable to me.
Are you maybe looking at the wrong ref? Ref 126 is by "Marjorie Kehe"
I certainly was. Removed Kehe ref. The Slate reference covers the statement.
Ref 140: formatting
Done.
No, not done. Referencing format should be the same as the other refs
Oh sorry, must have looked at the wrong ref. Fixed now I believe.
Ref 141: write out full publisher name
Fixed.
If you're going to include access dates for weblinks to print-based sources, you must do so for all of them
Felt stupid to include now that you mention it. Removed it.
If you're including location for some, it must be included for all books. However, you don't need full addresses
Decided not to include it. Removed those who had it.
Be consistent in formatting edition listings
Decided not to include it.
Editions actually do need to be included, because page numbers (among other things) can change between editions
Ehm well that makes kind of sense now that you say so... :) Changed.
Okay, but a typo ("Thrid"). Also, if the listed edition is the only edition in existence, you don't need to say "First"
It is just that I haven't specified it enough. Currently only "However, when the award was announced hostilities still occurred." is on the page. I will specify, thank you for noticing.
About Arafat: I could, of course, add it to the page. But please note that I could spend eternity adding controversies to the Nobel Prize article; there is another article for the controversies (Nobel Prize controversies). There is only so much that can be on the main page. But if you feel it has to be there I will gladly add it. Esuzu(talk • contribs)08:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The important difference is that these two (+ the one to Sadat and Ben Gurion) were criticized because recipients were viewed as warmongers or at least people who had definitely advocated against peace at some point. From what I know, other controversies over the Peace Prize are concerned with people whose accomplishments for peace were either thought to be non-existent (Obama) or unrelated to peace (climate prize). I think the former criticism is much more important and more subtle. It definitely should be there in detail. Pichpich (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sentence Ahnlund resigned, alleging that selecting Jelinek had caused "irreparable damage" to the reputation of the award. is incorrect. This is not what Ahnlund said and the sentence also fails to explain what Ahnlund found objectionable about Jelinek's work. This is something I just spotted at random and I'm tempted to oppose promotion because it shows that references have not been verified to match the content. I also think that the article should be copy-edited to improve the prose. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appriciate your comments Pichpich, but I doubt opposing would help; I will fix all problems noted here. I will take a closer look later today to ensure it is correct. I will leave a note here as soon as it is done. Esuzu(talk • contribs)19:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - If possible, be specific when complaining on the prose/grammar/syntax as I am not a native speaker and thus not an expert. Even better would be to fix the problems you see. Thank you. Esuzu
I am nominating this for featured article because it has good quality and has featured article potential also it failed along time ago it can make it now. Spongie555 (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—three links to dab pages and three dead external links: see the toolbox. Also, have you consulted with the main contributors of the article before this nomination, as the FAC instructions require? Ucucha05:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—I could not reach many of the contributors especially the creator but It was nominated before like 2 times so it is capable to be a canidate. Spongie555 (talk) 05:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose request withdrawal. The article has a major cleanup banner. It has had no formal review since being delisted from GA on 8 January 2010 and clearly needs massive work. FAC is not an article-building process. Nominator is not an active editor on this article. Brianboulton (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second out-of-process nom for this editor-- I don't have time to deal with this. Could someone please withdraw this FAC, and discuss with Spongie555 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
^Shelton 1986, p. 385 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShelton1986 (help)
^Shelton 1986, p. 384 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFShelton1986 (help)
.jpg){kind=link}
