Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2007
November 2007
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... because I feel after a lot of work from WikiProject Powderfinger and its individual members, it meets the featured article criteria. The article only just reached GA in August this year, but I believe that the article has improved substantially since then. I am happy (and I'm sure other members of the project are, too) to respond to any comments or suggestions you may have about the article. Thanks, Spebi 09:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a contributor, I believe it meets the criteria now too. Support. --lincalinca 09:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support with some comments/queries/suggestions:
- "and rankings on Australian music charts" — maybe clarify that Aust. music charts are top 100 (are they top 100?), to give perspective on how much of an achievement this is.
- Now reads and rankings in top 100 on Australian music charts.
Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now reads and rankings in top 100 on Australian music charts.
- "the tracks "These Days" and "My Kind of Scene" were written by the band for the films Two Hands and Mission: Impossible II" — is that respectively (ie. TD -> TH and MKOS -> MI2) or did they write both songs to be featured in both movies?
- "Powderfinger was formed in 1989 as a high school band by members vocalist and guitarist Ian Haug, bassist John Collins and drummer Steven Bishop, who took their name from the name of a Neil Young song" — was it the same high school they all attended (as implied by the sentence)? If so, which one?
- I removed the high school bit, even though they did form as a high school, I can't find much web content that actually states which school, so I removed that part. Now reads Powderfinger was formed in 1989 by, so pretty much Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the high school bit, even though they did form as a high school, I can't find much web content that actually states which school, so I removed that part. Now reads Powderfinger was formed in 1989 by, so pretty much
- "Powderfinger's final lineup change came" — I read this (especially the word 'final') as if it was there final lineup change ever, which might be applicable if the band wasn't still active. However, given they are still active and touring, would it be better to add a qualifer to the effect of "to date"? You kind of do this in the next sentence, but it confused me while reading it through the natural flow, so those two sentences may need a tweak for clarity.
- "of other artists' songs, gradually developing their own material" — reads as if there's a word missing before 'gradually', given the two parts separated by the comma are a contrast.
- I can't really see what's the problem with that one, so I've left it as it is. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "The EP quickly became successful and the group was signed to Polydor Records, a major record label in the UK" — reference (or is it the one from the next sentence?).
- "It charted poorly and failed to launch the band" — that really needs a reference, as it's a judgement statement.
- I merged it a bit. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Four singles were released from the album; "Pick You Up", "D.A.F.", "Living Type" and "Take Me In", which was released as a video-single featuring several other music videos by the group" — all four were released as a video single, or just "Take Me In"? If it's "Take Me In", please add 'the latter' or words to that effect before 'were released'.
- "A FasterLouder reviewer commented that" — what's FasterLouder?
- "selling over 280,000 copies[22] and spent almost two years in the albums chart" — confusion of tenses there: either 'selling' and 'spending' or 'sold' and 'spent'.
- Fixed, now reads Internationalist sold over 280,000 copies, and spent 100 weeks in the ARIA Albums Chart, although this might clash with the previous sentence a bit, it'll do for now. Done. Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed, now reads Internationalist sold over 280,000 copies, and spent 100 weeks in the ARIA Albums Chart, although this might clash with the previous sentence a bit, it'll do for now.
- "and reached European audiences for the first time" — what's Europe? *ducks* In all seriousness, just link Europe as it's the first time it's been used in the article.
- ""Passenger", a song from the album, was also nominated for three awards in 2000" — specify ARIA, as there are a lot of awards out there.
- "Odyssey Number Five was Powderfinger's most successful album to date" — does 'has been Powderfinger's most successful to date' work better?
- "and rankings on Australian music charts" — maybe clarify that Aust. music charts are top 100 (are they top 100?), to give perspective on how much of an achievement this is.
- That's a fair chunk of the article reviewed. I'll hopefully get the rest done over the weekend. On the whole it's a very good piece of work, and the article is very comprehensive and thorough nonetheless, however some minor tweaks may just clean it up slightly. Cheers, Daniel 06:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I think it's really what the article needed :) Spebi 06:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment MOS breach - album names shouldn't be in bold. Also, the "main article" things at each section is unnecessary. It would be useful to enclose the period of reference in parentheses in each sub-section heading like "Formation and early releases (1989-93)". Tommy Stardust (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- In regards to the album bolding, I'd like to divert your attention to Nine Inch Nails, which currently uses bold on album titles an their only EP release. I decided to bold the album titles on this article, and only the album titles (because Powderfinger have released 4 EPs, 2 in one timeframe, which in turn would make Early releases look way too bold-y). I think the {{main}}s should stay, but perhaps not contain every release in that era, so I've limited it to only album releases (and for the record, Done). As for the dates in the headers, Done, as well. Spebi 07:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On further thought, I have removed the {{main}} templates out from under each header, and removed the bolding; I based these two features on the Nine Inch Nails article, which uses its release of the era as the section header, hence having a need for the template. The main template links the article, so linking directly under the template would make the links redundant, and so bolding was put in place. This article doesn't use the same type of headers, and so it shouldn't use bolding or {{main}} (as none of the articles are really main articles, as such). Spebi 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- There are plenty of prose issues here. For eg: "Bernard Zuel, of The Sydney Morning Herald reviewed" and "The band received much praise and criticism, for the political views in several songs" incorrectly use a comma, the "We would never try and preach" quote is wholly unnecessary as the exact same thing as been explained in th prev line... And what exactly is a "similar" rock group? A thorough copy-edit is required. Tommy Stardust (talk) 09:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- On further thought, I have removed the {{main}} templates out from under each header, and removed the bolding; I based these two features on the Nine Inch Nails article, which uses its release of the era as the section header, hence having a need for the template. The main template links the article, so linking directly under the template would make the links redundant, and so bolding was put in place. This article doesn't use the same type of headers, and so it shouldn't use bolding or {{main}} (as none of the articles are really main articles, as such). Spebi 07:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Initial comment Unless the website that reprints the article has permission to reprint it, you shouldn't link to it. For example, I saw a Rolling Stone article that is reprinted on a fansite. In such instances, remove the direct link and just credit the article as you would if you were referencing it straight out of the magazine. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Jose João (talk) 09:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not comprehensive. No reception section. --Kaypoh (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a section titled "Reception" in the article. If the article was about a single, or an album, then I see the reasoning, but for the main band article, it doesn't seem like something to me that the article should/would/could have. The article has a philanthropy section, covering the band's philanthropic acts, and a musical style section, displaying comments from reviewers of their works relating to the band's style of music. Spebi 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a reception section, it just has a different title. Suggest disregarding this comment, Raul. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't imagine a section titled "Reception" in the article. If the article was about a single, or an album, then I see the reasoning, but for the main band article, it doesn't seem like something to me that the article should/would/could have. The article has a philanthropy section, covering the band's philanthropic acts, and a musical style section, displaying comments from reviewers of their works relating to the band's style of music. Spebi 04:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 05:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. Slabba (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments ....these days... , no seriously I have a few comments: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- turned out nothing like I had planned....control well it's slipping right through my hands... oh wait, you have comments...my bad :P Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been active in practicing philanthropic acts. - ewww, sounds clunky and unnatural. How about "Across their 15-year career, Powderfinger has been actively involved in philanthropic causes" or just "philanthropy" or something similar.- Appears to be Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be
- Need to explain why Parables is considered worst album and expand upon why Fanning described them as "dark days"
- I don't think there is much on that - they really don't like talking about it. Occasionally Bernie says in an interview that he hates the album etc. etc., but that's about all that's noteworthy.
- OK then - even that would be really helpful - e.g. "Fanning and other band members have declined to speculate" or "reasons no known" or something rather than just how it is. Sorry to be pedantic but this article is verry close but I feel really needs some enrichment somehow if possible.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there is much on that - they really don't like talking about it. Occasionally Bernie says in an interview that he hates the album etc. etc., but that's about all that's noteworthy.
- Need to explain why Parables is considered worst album and expand upon why Fanning described them as "dark days"
::Upon its release on July 4, 2003, Vulture Street, named after the street in Brisbane, headed off in a more aggressive direction, though remaining ballad oriented and melodic in style. - odd flow. I dont' think the album did this after release did it? It was written like that. Needs to be expanded and assessment of album in different sentence.
- Appears to be Done Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appears to be
Some of the info seems a bit spartan - can there be any more fleshing out of musical style? And look at ways of reducing a few commas but getting there...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
Self Nominating A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant. This article was first featured on Did you know? on February 27, 2007. It was then listed as a Good Article in June, and recently had a Peer Review. I believe I have addressed all of the points to the best of my ability from the Peer Review, where I received some great feedback and helpful suggestions. The article currently cites (35) different sources, and covers the Musical's intitial inspiration, production and development, a plot overview, lists the first few performances and interesting incidents that occurred during them, and goes over responses received in the press regarding both the play and the cast recording. I now submit this article to you as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Support, as nom. Cirt 08:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Comment The reception section is excellent. Should the lede maybe add a qualifier, such as satirical musical or some such?-BillDeanCarter 10:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. What do you mean exactly by qualifier, or how so? Feel free to do it yourself if you wish. By the way, thank you for your recent Wikignome edits, I really appreciate them. Cirt 10:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Nevermind, I added the qualifier, per your suggestion. "Satirical" works very nicely. Thank you. Cirt 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you agree that that does it, then great. Thanks again for your help. Cirt 10:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Yeah, that probably works. Some kind of qualifier so that people figure out that its object of satire is Scientology, and not official Scientology doctrine.-BillDeanCarter 10:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Any particular reason the tracklisting for the cast recording is hidden in a show/hide box? Also, "See also" shouldn't list links already in the article. There are at least two in there. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section? I will go ahead and remove them. Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - You were correct, I went ahead and removed three duplicate entries from the See also section that I had not noticed on a quick initial look through. Thank you. Cirt 15:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I removed the show/hide box in the Cast recording section, so that the tracklisting is no longer hidden. Cirt 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
- The track listing is formatted that way because of a suggestion from the Peer Review, actually. Which entries are you referring to in the See also section? I will go ahead and remove them. Cirt 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Question I noticed that in the section regarding the recording, the AllMusic Guide review mentions the song title as "The Way It Began" (which is the way it is in the source), and the listing mentions the title as "The Way That I Began". Is this a discrepancy? Did AMG get the title wrong? Are there recordings with this title? Was the song rewritten? My assumption is that AMG got the title wrong, and, if this is true, it should probably be noted with a [sic], or something along those lines. — MusicMaker5376 16:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Fixed it, thank you. Correct title is "The Way That It Began", AMG said incorrectly: The Way It Began", without the "that". Cirt 21:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
Any chance of getting some free images? Raul654 15:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, a good question. I am going to work on that myself, I cannot guarantee it within the next couple days or so, but hopefully/most likely within the next few weeks, yes. Cirt 17:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Per Raul654 (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, I replaced two fair-use images in the article with two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. DiffCirt 16:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Also, removed a third fair use image, so now there is one fair use image (the CD cover), and two free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. Cirt 17:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Update: - I will have one or more free-use images for this article, in the near future. Thanks for the suggestion. Cirt 04:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments:
- The plot synopsis contains a lot of information that does not belong in the plot synopsis, but rather belongs elsewhere in the description of the play. The plot should be described act by act, to give a chronological summary of what happens during the musical.
- The "Production" section is mostly History or Background and should be titled as such.
- The list of historical productions needs headings so that it is easy to separate one major production from another. There is little or no musical and textual analysis.
- Each reference should be examined to see if you have really mined the information in it. Some good quotes from the best sources would be helpful.
- Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre/Article Structure. This is a good article, but I think you have more work to do here before this is a FA-quality article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Addressed one point from above, changed a section heading from Production to Background. Cirt (talk) 14:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Moved some info out of plot section, into background section. Thank you, this was a good idea. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Added headings of year-ranges into productions section. Cirt (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I checked - there is only one act in the play, so the plot section cannot go act-by-act, it can only describe the one act. And the plot section is organized in a chronological fashion. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Ssilvers (talk · contribs) left some good suggestions about the plot summary section on the article's talk page. I incorporated some of those points to expand that section, and add a little more information from some of the songs in the play as well. Cirt (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Expanded the plot summary section more. Added some more information on the music/songs used. Looked through the sources used in the plot section, and added some more quotes from the best sources. (All as per suggestions from above.) Cirt (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Moved some info to create a Musical analysis section, as suggested by Ssilvers (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Expanded the Background, Plot summary, and new Musical analysis sections a bit more, with more info from existing sources. Removed some passive voice syntax from the Plot summary section. Removed some wording from the lede, to prune it down a small bit. (As per FAC reviewer suggestions.) Cirt (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks for these suggestions! I will address them and note each point as I try to best address your comments. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC).
- Comment: - I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge Ssilvers (talk · contribs) and the other FAC reviewers on this page, and thank you for providing your feedback. I don't think I got a chance to do this at the last article I successfully got through FAC - I was probably too busy (or perhaps too frustrated) while implementing changes and suggestions from everyone who commented on the FAC page. No matter what becomes of this particular FAC - the article itself looks much, much better because of all of your suggestions. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support - You have worked hard to implement changes suggested here, at the article's talk page and on your talk page, and I agree that the article is much improved. I can support the advancement of this article now. I think a bit more could be done to clarify the prose, especially regarding how the songs in the show relate to the songs on the cast album, and whether the songs in the 2003 version are different from those in the 2006 version. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Of course, as I find more information in other sources, I will continue to add to the article. I will certainly keep in mind the suggestions you have already made, and this new point about potential differences between the songs in the various productions is another good one. Thanks again for all of your help. Cirt (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
My normal area of operations is football articles, but my wife made me promise to work on the article on her hometown in exchange for spending so long on the computer! :-) So I've been hard at work on this for a while now, have put the article through peer review and successfully put it up for GA, but I now feel it's at FA level - what do you think.....?
Thanks, ChrisTheDude 12:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment After a quick glance, it looks good but maybe the Famous people section should be renamed Notable people, as "famous" is a bit too subjective. Full dates in the footnotes also need linking. Could the history section be expanded? Epbr123 13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've significantly expanded the history section, what do you think now (BTW all your copyediting is much appreciated!!!) ChrisTheDude 21:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Epbr123 12:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Famous" people are now "notable" and (I think) all the dates in the footnotes have been linked. As for the history section, I will have another look through my books tonight and see if there's anything else that can be added/expanded -- ChrisTheDude 13:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - As the article’s GA and peer reviewer, I have no qualms in this being featured, and I’m sure Chris will do an excellent job in dealing with any issues that others may bring up. Cheers, — H2O — 00:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: a couple of things - first, there's a typo in a date in one of the refs, which results in a redlink. Second, you might want to consider going for a right-left-right-left format with the images, rather than leaving them all on the right. You managed to get that many references on a town? Wow! I'm impressed. Carre 15:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yup – thumbs up from me on the images now. I haven't actually read the article properly yet, so can't give it a support or oppose, but you've addressed my comments perfectly. Carre 16:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is it any better now.....? ChrisTheDude 15:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Quick response, and now I'm slightly embarrassed since some of the new image locations look odd to me at my computer resolution (1024 x 768, Firefox browser), and it was my suggestion that caused you to move them in the first place! The miners postcard, in conjunction with the {{cquote}}, and the Brownhills Common/Brownhills bridge ones are the ones in question now, but in other resolutions may well be perfectly fine. I think I should leave this to your better judgement, and get me coat :) Carre 15:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments, I've made the changes you mention..... ChrisTheDude 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I like this article very much, and it's one of the best FA noms for a UK settlement in a while! It's consise, direct and proffessional. I think it's close to the FA standard. However, I have a few suggestions, hailing mostly from the WP:UKCITIES standard, namely:
- The infobox should have the distance and direction to London (add |london_distance= ) - see Shaw and Crompton or Chew Stoke as examples. Done
- Geography and climate should be renamed Geography, as climate studies are a part of geography, and this approach is taken elsewhere in the UK. Done
- Demographics should be renamed to Demography - the rationale is that it's poor grammar - the other sections would otherwise also be named geographics and economics. Done
- The thumbnails shouldn't generally have their sizes set to a particular size. They should really have that tier of formatting removed. Done
- I would personally prefer (but wouldn't necessarily oppose) the article if it took a more uniformed layout to match that of Dundee, Manchester, Shaw and Crompton, as recommended by WP:UKCITIES. It's nice to follow a House style to keep these settlements consistent. Done
- In Governance be careful not to confuse councils with divisions of land - "The Brownhills District established in 1877 remained in existence until 1894 when it was superseded by Brownhills Urban District Council" - I know what you mean, but the district is a territory, whilst the council is a group of people; they cannot merge! "Council" should be dropped. Done
- Is it possible that the co-ordinates of Brownhills could be added to the Geography section? (see Manchester as an example of this). Done Also is there nothing about Brownhills land use, urban structure and built environment that could be added? Done - I think.....
I hope these suggestions help, -- Jza84 · (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comments, I have actioned some and will look at the others when I have a bit more time available over the weekend...... ChrisTheDude 11:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added the name of the canal to the caption of the bridge photo since it isn't mentiuoned in this section. It also explains what the bridge is going over (ie a canal) without having to search the text. I think the Economy section should restate the date of the demise in the coal industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Andrews (talk • contribs) 13:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, nothing more, nothing less! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well sourced. You might want to expand the Lead/Intro a teensy bit more, and use an Article History template on the talk page instead of the GA and Peer Review boxes separately. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done I've slightly expanded the lead as requested ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Excellent, well-written article. --Malleus Fatuarum (talk) 23:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
(Self nomination, with other collaborators) I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it now meets the featured article criteria. The article has been through two GA's and a peer review. Issues that were raised have been addressed. I would also welcome further input on the development of the article. Kbthompson 10:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Nearly thereOppose for now- looks very good and prose, layout and comrehensiveness all look good. A little comma-happy in the prose in places. I'll try and catch a few but it'll be a fall over the line soon. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- (can't find the damn commas now...but anyway..) OK, Community tensions have often been raised by racist events. - eww. People are racist, not events. Would look better if it were described as race-driven event (?) or if you can think of some other adjective highlighting it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
90&95% of it looks great, but two sections (and lack of a third) let it down.The disasters section should be turned into prose and paragraphs - I'd have two, a pre-war summary of bits and pieces and one on the blitz, which is a pretty iconic event.
- The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment,
the TV and really obvious TV show needs a few lines on its importance in UK television - only one of the biggest soaps over the past 20 years and is named for the place and tries to be as 'east-endy' as possible(doesn't have to be too long, a note about Walford and real analogue would help too (though not a deal-breaker))
- The last bit really needs some work - the literature subsection needs some refs and could do with a little embellishment,
::There is nothing on cockney apart from a seealso (?!) - this really needs a paragraph pr two under east end culture or somesuch. In the seealso section Jack London and Orwell need to be incorporated into literature.
Overall, though it is a terrific read and you should get over the line this go round, but just need to plug a bit
- Comment Thanks for that. Very helpful.
- I rephrased and re-ordered the population section to get around the awkward expression.
- I'll fix the disasters section today. I think by four paragraphs, general, first war and second, post-war. I want to try avoid to further sub-headings.
- Not concentrating on Cockney was really something that arose from the discussions when we started expanding this article, about a year ago (my god). The definition we agreed was geographic, rather than linguistic. Cockney being something that started in the City and concentrated in the East End as a linguistic remnant. I realise that you're right and it is a related, if not conterminous term.
- East Enders - anyone watch it? I'll do what I can.
- No, again, thank you very constructive. Kbthompson 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment moving right along, and not indenting:
- There is now an extensive section on the second world war, with emphasis on the blitz. Some detail was previously buried in ... built environment and ... disasters, they've now been incorporated into a new section. There's other material, I have in mind for that section, but it's almost looking like a separate article! (Basically looting - most ARP wardens and about a third of the London Fire brigade were charged with looting at some time during the war, strikes - the worst record for days lost to strikes in Britain (apart from the General Strike), occurred during WWII. In fact, possibly the General strike should get a mention somewhere, but this is not limited to the East End (where do you stop?).
- The plan for Cockney is to mention them in the intro, and briefly state the relationship of the tongue to the area. Then expand as the lead into culture, as the stereotype - partly built on war-time propaganda - has a major impact on 20th century images of the area.
- I have been asked to provide more detail in the intro to the history section; I'll put in a para' or two about ecclesiastic lands, crown seizures and labour conditions.
- Lastly, I'll tidy up the rest of the culture section.
That should keep me busy. Kbthompson 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you for your support. I think the current version meets all the requests for more explication and covers the deficiencies you had identified in your review. I hope any further changes on my part will only be tweaking. Any other comments? Kbthompson (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've done some tidying, and I think most of the comments above have been dealt with. Question for the experienced FA reviewers: Does the article need to include (birth-death) dates next to blue-linked people, as it does now? Good work! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment with such a broad time-scale dates have been included against people in order to give some appreciation of the era being talked about. Where possible events have been dealt with chronologically, but sometimes it also makes sense to mention what (and who) happened next. I shall, of course, accede to wiser heads. (... and thank you for your efforts). Kbthompson (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Nicely written, well referenced. Would prefer the image sizes removed per the WP:MOS though. Frankly this is of a standard that WP should aim for across the board. Regan123 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Good article. The Further Reading section needs some tidying (i.e. missing comma after surname on a few entries). Question for experienced FA reviewers: would a different citation style, such as APA, Chicago, Harvard, MLA, or Turabian, where the surname precedes the first name, be preferable? Rosiestephenson (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - thank you. I've added those commas. I think you would be right about citation style for an academic work, however such a style would make linking to authors wiki articles quite onerous. I think the templates {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} provide some element of further standardisation but again would increase the article size (the additional size doesn't count for the purposes of assessment, but there is a practical limit). WP:CITE gives specific guidance on citing sources and in my understanding provides considerable latitude in the way they are presented, as long as the information is there. If I work on another, I'll certainly consider using that style and tools. Kbthompson (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 20:06, 28 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article because it's gone through two PRs, and I can think of nothing much to improve this article, except maybe the prose, and short of anything big happening in the next few months/years, there's very little verifiable information I think I can add. Will (talk) 21:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - the article lacks any mention of rugby league even though the sport has a long association with the road. Even though I offered to reference any statements, they were still deemed unsuitable. I can't see how this article can be considered for FAC status with a huge area completely uncovered.-- GordyB (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Baseless oppose - I knew when I saw you on the watchlist that it'd be about rugby league. Just, please, give it up. Will (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I will not "give it up". The article is not yours to decide what content should go in.GordyB (talk) 10:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, I put it in three days ago. If you have no other objections, please withdraw your opposition. Will (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done, using the New Statesman citation. Will (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Right, it's in the "See also". Happy? Will (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless, I put it in three days ago. If you have no other objections, please withdraw your opposition. Will (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose The second I read the first word, I see problems.
- The lead is way too short. It needs to adequately summarize what the article is going to mention, like the route description and history.
- Done Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Two paragraphs is still not adequate. And where is the rest of the sampling? 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- The infobox is way too long. I recommend using {{Infobox road}} and cut back on some of the information there, since they are only supposed to be sources of quick information.
- Please see WP:ELG for how to format exit lists. You may adopt it so that it fits the UK's format.
Not done - see below Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done now (see below also) Will (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please give readers a real prose description of the route.
- Done, or at least tried. Will (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be a lot longer and in its own section. It should not be with the exit list. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- Why should it be longer? There's not much you can write about 30 miles of flat semi-urban land, 40 miles of moor, and 30 more miles of flat semi-urban land. Will (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Because the current description lacks any interesting meat besides location. Give the reader a bird eye's view of the road. It's boring right now; spice it up a bit.
- Why should it be longer? There's not much you can write about 30 miles of flat semi-urban land, 40 miles of moor, and 30 more miles of flat semi-urban land. Will (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Should be a lot longer and in its own section. It should not be with the exit list. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- The entire References in music section is unsourced. At least put refs for the lyrics so that it can show how it relates.
- The lead is way too short. It needs to adequately summarize what the article is going to mention, like the route description and history.
More as I find them. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:12, 16 November 2007 (GMT)
- Most of these are based upon what works for US Roads, which doesn't necessarily work for UK roads. But still... Will (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of WP:ELG, it's purely a WP:USRD style guide. It was moved after an editor asked (IIRC) its creator to move it into Wikipedia-space, and I don't think the agreement of two editors is enough to move the scope of a guideline from national to international. The article (and A500 road, for that matter), would not've passed GA as it would've failed the MoS criteria. Will (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not anymore. While it may look like a purely USRD style guide, it is actually for all limited-access road articles. The only thing is localisation to the road it is covering. You may want to initiate a discussion about international applicability on the talk page. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 02:19, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- It is a USRD style guide. No other project uses it. If you can show me a discussion where there's consensus to internationalise it, then I'll change the exit list. But now, it's fine. Will (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- More problems at the moment:
- I've noticed that a lot of the article relies on a source called the CBRD. It's unfortunately not reliable, since it is a personal website. Find newspapers, maps, and atlases instead.
- Why is the section "Development after opening" where it is? Seems a little disorganised from the rest of the chronological history. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 03:05, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- "To cap it off, the Highways Agency and Department for Transport have been known to refer some queries here when they couldn't provide the answers themselves." (emphasis mine). You're seriously not suggesting that the British goverment has standards for reliablity lower than Wikipedia, are you? Will (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah—Chris's British Road Database??? You have got to be kidding me; it's no more than a personal website. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (GMT)
- Done - development and incidents switched Will (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- CBRD is reliable. Interesting reading on why it is. Will (talk) 11:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose- seeing the rugby thing above was what made me click the article. That link appears out of nowhere, and a line about why it's there should be included in the article; I suggest renaming "references in music" to "references in culture" and make note of the rugby connection there. --Golbez (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)- Support, roadcrufters unite! --Golbez (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- More stuff:
- Doesn't the UK use the metric system? If it is so, shouldn't all primary units in the article be in km instead?
- Not for road distances...we're a confused country! Carre (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Roads are officially measured in miles in the UK (and it's one the last things that does).
Won't fix Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Roads are officially measured in miles in the UK (and it's one the last things that does).
- Not for road distances...we're a confused country! Carre (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- A citation for the exit list is needed.
Doing...; thinking of a way to cite it. Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- For the distance column, you might also want to provide a conversion to the other unit. Also, the list is not precise enough.
- There's more risk of false precision by converting to kilometres. The citations for the exit list only do it to the precision of a mile, and I can't find any other reference links. Again, Won't fix Will (talk) 09:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's more risk of false precision by converting to kilometres. The citations for the exit list only do it to the precision of a mile, and I can't find any other reference links. Again,
- On Windy Hill, near the highest point of the motorway, the road divides into two and Stott Hall Farm, and its 18th-century cottage, is situated in between the two halves.—awkward.
- Might want to comb through the external links to make sure it complies with WP:EL.
- Doesn't the UK use the metric system? If it is so, shouldn't all primary units in the article be in km instead?
哦， 是吗？(User:O) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (GMT)
- Support - Very good article with good sources. I really like the good use of maps too, they are always very informative. Any opposition I can see seems to be minor and has already been fixed so I'm very happy! Well done to the editors of this article. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 13:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well-written (and referenced!) article and largely per Andrew's comments. Rudget.talk 12:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support despite my strong distaste for the WP:ELG junction lists, this article is well written, referenced and would be a great addition to the featured articles on Wikipedia. Regan123 (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just noticed this critical error in the route description: routes/roads do not travel. They never did, and they never will. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 23:46, 25 November 2007 (GMT)
- Done Will (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Article is well written, well referenced, and meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Route description has too many stubby paragraphs. 哦， 是吗？(User:O) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (GMT)
- Okay, Done. Will (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- Okay,
- Support Meets all of the criteria. Only one nit-pick in the infobox it indicates Major cities but Goole is a town not a city. Keith D (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know; I'm using that field as a major destinations field. Will (talk) 13:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Self Nomination: I am nominating this article because I feel it is ready for FAC and belive it is of FA status. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 10:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
- I will respond to queries <24 hours. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
CommentsSupport I’m afraid I’m not sure if the prose is up to scratch here. I’ve fixed a few obvious errors here and there, and there's quite a bit of choppy prose and stubby paragraphs. I think it would have benefited from a copy-edit prior to nomination. There’s a tendency to use technical terms or assume rugby knowledge; I’ve pointed out the times when I didn’t follow something.
- “He mainly plays in the fullback position,” As well as describing his positions, a more general description of his play might be useful for non-rugby readers. Eg “As a fast, energetic player with a good positional sense, he mainly plays…” (or whatever is appropriate…); provided it has a source, of course.
- Not done, will find a source (that isn't biased) but
“Hunt's childhood hero was Michael Jordan and he dreamt of playing basketball in the United States and after moving to Brisbane, Hunt played junior rugby league for the South's club in Acacia Ridge.” The two sections of this sentence need separating in some manner; also, I don’t see the causal link between dreaming of basketball and playing rugby that it implies.- Not done and Done - You seemed to have done it.
- Wasn't me! Some kind soul has given the article a copy-edit.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, but is it OK, now? SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wasn't me! Some kind soul has given the article a copy-edit.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- In Early life, again, some sort of description of what sort of player he was would be nice.
- Not done It's a bit hard with the sources I have, but will work on after wikibreak.
“an undefeated premiership in 2003” sounds good, but I’m not sure what premiership means; from context I’m guessing a league competition.- Done
It may be an idea to emphasis that league and union are noticeably different here; non-rugby readers may not realise.- Not done I could go an entire paragraph, trying to explain the difference, which is why I provide links.
- Ah, I wasn't suggesting an explanation, but rather flagging to the reader that a distinction exists, so they can click links if they wish. Something like "At ACGS, Hunt switched to playing rugby union"J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done added "switched to" Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I wasn't suggesting an explanation, but rather flagging to the reader that a distinction exists, so they can click links if they wish. Something like "At ACGS, Hunt switched to playing rugby union"J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The schoolboy record table precisely repeats the information in the text, making it a bit redundant.- Done Yes it does, I removed it.
Expand NRL the first time you use it in the main article, eg National Rugby League (NRL)- Done
Debut season: The explanation leading to his debut seems rather abrupt. Are there any details on why he was brought in, and why he was moved to starting? If, for example, his pre-season form played him in, say so.- Not done Thats in the 2nd and final paragraph of the section "Early life", and breifly mentioned in the first sentence of "Debut season"
- I'm afraid I still don't follow it. In case I wasn't clear, its this part: "Hunt was selected to participate in the Broncos' pre-season trial games in February. He played both trial games on the wing and scored a try in the first game against the Melbourne Storm.[21] Hunt made his National Rugby League (NRL) debut at the age of seventeen" that I find abrupt. If there's some comment on why he was unexpectedly promoted, that would be great.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done(I think) - I commented that he played trials after off-season training, but his selection was surprising (considering that there is no source for why he was promoted) Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- With a lack of sources, this section is problematic, clearly. I'll have to ponder it, but thatnks for working on the section. J.Winklethorpe talk 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if the coach isn't saying, then there's not much to be done. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I still don't follow it. In case I wasn't clear, its this part: "Hunt was selected to participate in the Broncos' pre-season trial games in February. He played both trial games on the wing and scored a try in the first game against the Melbourne Storm.[21] Hunt made his National Rugby League (NRL) debut at the age of seventeen" that I find abrupt. If there's some comment on why he was unexpectedly promoted, that would be great.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
“He drew some criticism for his style of returning the football” – criticism requires sources, returning the football requires a clearer explanation.- Done
“Throughout the entire year after playing 26 games, he missed only four minutes of play for the Broncos.” The reference is broken, and the sentence is a bit convoluted (Technically, it implies he missed 4 minutes after having played 26 games). How about “He played the entire 26-game season, missing only four minutes of play”; also, why not merge this short para with the one above?- Done
“In a round 6 game” – non-rugby clarification please.- Done (hopefully) I have added a link, but still may need more clarification.
- I can't think of an elegant way to work it in; at least the link can be followed if needed.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done See if it reads better now. ~ Florrie • talk • 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Florrie, SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well, there's still other uses of "Round X" in the article. I'm not sure if the best plan is to change them all to "Week X", which is clearer, but loses the precise terminology of the game. Opinions? J.Winklethorpe talk 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- In that case I've reverted 'week' to 'round' and wikilinked the first instance of the word in context to Tournament. I'd suggest adding 'round' to List of rugby league terms and defining the terminology there if it is still an issue.~ Florrie • talk • 05:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, well, there's still other uses of "Round X" in the article. I'm not sure if the best plan is to change them all to "Week X", which is clearer, but loses the precise terminology of the game. Opinions? J.Winklethorpe talk 23:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Florrie, SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- I can't think of an elegant way to work it in; at least the link can be followed if needed.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
“Timmins was charged with a grade two careless high tackle” – as above; or even just lose the “grade two”.- Done
I think that paragraph (“In a round 6 game”) could be written more smoothly.- Done~ Florrie • talk • 12:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
“a key play-maker in the halves” – clarification- Done - possibly. Check diffs for variations on same. [3] ~ Florrie • talk • 12:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Rather than “During his injury”, how about “while out injured” or similar.- Done
There’s nothing in ref 50 about the CCTV tape.- Done removed it.
“the expected six weeks” isn’t required, as you’ve just mentioned the original prognosis in the last sentence.- Done
- “making one error and 83 metres in kick returns” “Hunt ran with the ball 17 times, making 196 metres.” Are these good things? Bad things? I have no context to judge with.
The career statistics boxes leave a lot of white space on my screen. The 3 small ones are widely separated; perhaps a single box for them would be better?{{doing}} I have a smaller screen and don't observe these things, but can do.- Done Put them in one column.
The top-right info box is rather large, and holds some fairly trivial information (school, relatives). Personally, I’d prefer it trimmed.- Done Got rid of school, as it is trivial. But prefer if relatives stay there. But if you still insist. I have seen larger infoboxes
- Infoboxes seem to suffer from bloat, that's why I'd suggest keeping them lean. The way I look at it, is that the infobox should give the vital (and only the vital) details. For example, for anyone other than a sportsman, the physical details aren't relevant. If he had a notable parent, then that might be relevant. Anyway, it's your call.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. So thats really there for notable relatives. OK. Thanks. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- Oh, I see. So thats really there for notable relatives. OK. Thanks. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 21:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Infoboxes seem to suffer from bloat, that's why I'd suggest keeping them lean. The way I look at it, is that the infobox should give the vital (and only the vital) details. For example, for anyone other than a sportsman, the physical details aren't relevant. If he had a notable parent, then that might be relevant. Anyway, it's your call.J.Winklethorpe talk 10:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to disagree with any of the above. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Did some of the quick easier things, will hopefully finish most this arvo (AUS time). I'm hopeless at English, so me copy-editing would be a false errand. Thanks for your comments. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I think the article is improved. If some of the details asked for simply don't exist in a reliable source, then there's nothing to be done. I fixed a few WP:DASH issues while reading through. J.Winklethorpe talk 21:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did some of the quick easier things, will hopefully finish most this arvo (AUS time). I'm hopeless at English, so me copy-editing would be a false errand. Thanks for your comments. SpecialWindler talk (currently offline) 22:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support I supported last time around, and I see no reason to change that. DrKiernan 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSupport - it's good, but not quite good enough IMO to pass the article. The main problems are with the article's comprehensiveness, and combined with this, the written prose - I don't think either are quite up to scratch. Let's outline the few problems that I have:- Prose is not "excellent"/coverage is not comprehensive: My main problem. For example, in the Brisbane Broncos section, the first sub-section (Debut season) is well-written. It includes interesting information, such as the fact that Hunt scored a try in the opening game, 4 tries in Round 17, etc. plus a whole lot of other important information which keeps a good balance. The 2007 section is almost as good; the bit in the middle, however, is not as good. It is vague and not specific as a Featured Article should be, eg. "However, Hunt did not perform as well in his second season as his debut year,[37] which the media labelled as 'Karmichael's second-year syndrome'. Though Hunt scored less tries and had less kick returns than in his debut season, he was retained in his preferred fullback position for the entire year." Did not perform as well, less tries and less kicks are not specific enough, and although they are referenced, they are far too subjective for a Featured Article's style. This sort of section should go into more specific things like tries he scored in particular games, interesting matches where Hunt was involved, etc. Take a look at existing FAs in sport like Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), where, although it's a different sport, I see a better balance and better writing overall; the paragraphs, for example, are generally longer and more comprehensive than they are here. I'm not going to point out further sections at present but I think the article could do with some rewriting and some further detailing as a whole to make it absolutely excellent. Adding a prose section on awards, etc. will help with this also (see below).
- I've done a copy edit of the article, and changed/added to those sentences, but haven't really changed the content. It's difficult to find sources to interesting games, especially when they happened two years ago, but maybe SpecialWindler can address that when he gets back. Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- The fact of comprehensiveness, is that this is still a current player. Hunt is only 20 now and still has an average 10-15 more years in his rugby league career. If I was to put as much detail in those 15 year then the article would become too long, then add later career etc. Currently though, they are in my opinion lenghth enough. But I agree, the middle needs a bit of strenghthining. Will work on. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 03:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good work. Let me know when you're finished. JRG 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Much better -
but I have two points of contention against changing my mind: the less important one is that I'd still like more mentions of notable games for Hunt like are done in other FAs (as outlined above), and the more important point is that a rewrite of the Representative career section is needed. The paragraphs are too short and not comprehensive enough for a Featured Article. JRG 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC){{doing}}Will begin, I agree with the representative career section. I will do that first, over the next day or two. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 09:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)- Having had a more careful read, I'm now happy to say that there's enough information about the parts that Hunt has played in Broncos games, eg. tries scored, etc. - especially given that he is in an early stage of his playing career. I've removed that contention - but my point still stands on the representative career section. What you've done so far is good though. My final minor point is to put in a reference for his birthdate (from the article not the table). Do these things and I will change to a support. It's a much improved article and you should be commended on your work. JRG 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done, though I've Rearranged not rewritten, into more relevent paragraphs and section headers. If you would still like me to add more to them, I can. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 10:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Having had a more careful read, I'm now happy to say that there's enough information about the parts that Hunt has played in Broncos games, eg. tries scored, etc. - especially given that he is in an early stage of his playing career. I've removed that contention - but my point still stands on the representative career section. What you've done so far is good though. My final minor point is to put in a reference for his birthdate (from the article not the table). Do these things and I will change to a support. It's a much improved article and you should be commended on your work. JRG 23:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Much better -
- Good work. Let me know when you're finished. JRG 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Quotes in boxes: Get rid of them. This is an encyclopedic article, not an article for a sports magazine, and the quotes should be put in some sort of context or omitted altogether. From what I can see, they are quite useful, so there's probably some appropriate places within the article to put them.- Done I've either put quotes in relevant sections or taken them out and added the source, depending on what I felt was appropriate.Damanmundine1 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, weep weep, sob sob. Arrr well. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Honours section: the presentation of this section as a table is inappropriate for a Featured article. It should be written in prose, not tabulated. In its present form it is also unreferenced. I would rewrite the whole thing as a paragraph or two, rather than keep the table form. Some of that stuff should go at the top (like debuts).- Not done OK, I removed the Debut bit because it is trivial, but not awards or records. If you see Adam Gilchrist (a FA), you can see similar table down below. Most of the info on this table, like the Adam Gilchrist article, is mentioned and referenced in the article body. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's fine - but the Adam Gilchrist article does have the table referenced. I think that's important at least, even if it is put elsewhere in the article, there should be references (even if they are just duplicates of other references). JRG 08:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Career statistics: is there a way to improve the career statistics section? A graph perhaps?- Done I have evened all the the tables width, to look better. This isn't an improvement but avoids "messyness". It is a bit hard to improve, graphs require constant work. But if you have suggestions. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 09:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Images: a minor point, but is there any chance of a photo of Hunt playing in a game or at least another image to improve the article? If you can't find one and fix everything else up, I would be happy to pass the article, but I think an image or two more would help.
- Always trying, not successful but will eventually. It will be hard now that the rugby league season is over. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 06:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to criticise the good work - it's great and better than most articles on WP, but I think this doesn't quite meet the FA standard and I think these few things should ensure that it gets over the line in the near future. Thanks. JRG 14:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - one more thing - I noticed you've used some non-website sources in your references. Following the Manual of Style you need a "references" section under your footnotes section outlining the sources you've used in full citation, above the external links section. This should only take a minute or so to do, but it's important. JRG 00:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm now satisfied that enough work and effort has been put into this article to make it deserving of FA status and I'm happy to support its promotion, provided that the editors who wrote this are prepared to keep working on it as Hunt progresses through his career. Excellent work everyone. JRG 05:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Prose is not "excellent"/coverage is not comprehensive: My main problem. For example, in the Brisbane Broncos section, the first sub-section (Debut season) is well-written. It includes interesting information, such as the fact that Hunt scored a try in the opening game, 4 tries in Round 17, etc. plus a whole lot of other important information which keeps a good balance. The 2007 section is almost as good; the bit in the middle, however, is not as good. It is vague and not specific as a Featured Article should be, eg. "However, Hunt did not perform as well in his second season as his debut year,[37] which the media labelled as 'Karmichael's second-year syndrome'. Though Hunt scored less tries and had less kick returns than in his debut season, he was retained in his preferred fullback position for the entire year." Did not perform as well, less tries and less kicks are not specific enough, and although they are referenced, they are far too subjective for a Featured Article's style. This sort of section should go into more specific things like tries he scored in particular games, interesting matches where Hunt was involved, etc. Take a look at existing FAs in sport like Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), where, although it's a different sport, I see a better balance and better writing overall; the paragraphs, for example, are generally longer and more comprehensive than they are here. I'm not going to point out further sections at present but I think the article could do with some rewriting and some further detailing as a whole to make it absolutely excellent. Adding a prose section on awards, etc. will help with this also (see below).
- Of course. Thanks. Now 3 supports, 0 opposes. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 05:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose—Poorly written, and is hardly among "our best work", as required—too much of this article comprises trivial information about exchanges and intentions. And no, this is not a vote, so there's no point in tallying. Here are just random issues in the prose—don't just fix these ones.
- "competition winning team"—Where's the hyphen?
- Done Added hyphen. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt mainly plays in the fullback position, but he has also been used on the wing and at halfback." First he plays, then he's "used"—very odd. Why the "but"?
- I feel the "but" is necessary - it is to show that Hunt is primarily, but not exclusively a fullback. I changed the "used" to "plays" though. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why are "2004", "2005" and "2006" linked? I was expecting it to be piped to something useful. Blue spattering—annoying to the readers.
- DoneLinked to the respective National Rugby League seasons. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Dally M rookie of the year for 2004"—So which bit is the title? Initial upper-case should indicate.
- Not sure exactly what you mean here, but I've capitalised "rookie" and "year" and added award to indicate that this was his actual award. Dally M (Dally Messenger) is who the awards are named after. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Eleven" and then "15". Where's the boundary?
- Done Changed 'eleven' to '11'. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Changed '11' back to 'eleven' as it was in the same sentence as 'four'. I've left Round numbers as numerals and measurements as numerals. Also left 'Under-14' etc as numeral as that is the accepted presentation, I would think. May be some numerals I've missed, but will try to re-edit today. ~ Florrie • talk • 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Under 14 South-East team"—Hyphen?
- Not done Is this meant to be removed? Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added hyphen to under 14 and under 15. ~ Florrie • talk • 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "His manager asked the 15-year-old what he wanted to do with his future. Hunt responded that he wanted to play first grade"—getting a little trivial for a gold-star article on WP.
- Done Removed. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt plays his rugby league for the Brisbane Broncos."—Inexplicable caption. Huh? There are several more schematic images, too, of football jerseys, are they? Why the indicative statements attached? One ("Hunt is an international representative for Australia") has no final period, yet is a full sentence. See MOS.
- I've added the full stop (or period) to the offending sentences. Yes, they are rugby league jerseys - I guess that's not clear enough. How do you propose we make that more explicit? Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Double period after one sentence.
- Where? Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I can't find any, either. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Hunt drew some criticism for his style of returning the football, because he would take the ball straight forward rather than going around opposition players.[5] As a result he was often targeted by opposing players, which resulted in the Broncos asking the NRL to protect Hunt with more penalties." Remove "some". "Going around" is either vague or informal. "Broncos" here, strictly speaking, needs an apostrophe. Otherwise, reword. But the biggest issue is that it's hard for a non-expert to comprehend what it all means.
- I've changed the first sentence
completely.I think it makes the rest of the passage more coherent, but I'll need a non-league person to tell me that.I've changed the rest of the passage, but I'm still unsure whether a non-league person will make sense of it.Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the first sentence
- "To prevent excessive pressure on him, Bennett placed a season-long media ban on Hunt." Very loose language. Vague and unexplained, I can see the teacher's comment in the margin.
- Done Changed sentence completely - should make more sense now. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 02:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- We don't need "AU" after the first appearance of the Australian currency. See MOS.
- Done Removed where appropriate.Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "competition winning team"—Where's the hyphen?
Tony (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've also made other style changes to the article, which hopefully have improved it. Thanks for the criticism. Damanmundine1 (Talk) 01:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I ask you, Tony, what do you mean by "trivial". Using some specific examples can you clear out what you mean. To me, I can't find any bit of trivia, which irrelevent to his life or career. Yes, there are short bits of information which explain what hes done, such as "In 2000, Hunt made his representative debut with the Under-14 South–East team of the Queensland Rugby League (QRL), in the fullback position. In 2001, he became part of the Under-15 Australian merit side, and, upon seeing him play rugby league, Brisbane Broncos scout Cyril Connell offered him a scholarship with the club.", but to remove all that would disregard it in the "comrehensive" part of WP:FA?. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 04:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pass & Support
- On the grounds that it fulfills the Featured article criteria more so than other FAC articles.
- Request(s):
- Images of the subject in action.
- Always trying to find one, but may be hard as it is currently off-season. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 06:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Images of the subject in action.
- Support: I opposed this last time with a list of fixes required, and I'm satisfied that enough has been improved for this to be considered some of Wikipedia's best work. Daniel 07:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - good work. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- In regard to the infobox's image: I read through the e-mail exchange on the image description page, and after taking a look at the Flickr source, it looks looks copyright holder still wants to place a restriction on derivative works. Can you get the copyright holder to explicitly allow distribution and modification for both commercial and non-commercial purposes? It'd be great if you could forward the exchange to OTRS, as well, but for now, it doesn't seem like the image is free enough. -- RG2 02:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- On second thought, would I be correct in saying that this image shouldn't be sourced to Flickr, but rather to a private e-mail, in which the Wikipedia crop was made free, rather than the Flickr image as a whole? -- RG2 02:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
May I ask what is OTRS. The message exchange was over Flickr Mail not E-Mail. And I will ask the copyright owner, for that request, when I figure out what is meant by the OTRS. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 10:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- You are meant to email the permission email to the OTRS system so it can be verified and permanently archived. See Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#When_permission_is_confirmed. Daniel 10:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- But it's not E-Mail, its a seperate mail system. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 09:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Support - Good work, good co-operation! --Palatinus Regni!!! 19:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Self-nomination - Help with several editors have made this article into it's present GA state; article is written to cover the entire series with or without specific individual game articles in mind (originally, it was suggested to merge all the games into this article since the notability of each individual game is very low beyond the first game, despite the overall notability of the series). Article should be stable with the latest port out for a few months without making much of a blip on the video game space. --MASEM 16:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - Looks pretty good, but a few points. I'd remove all of the red links, link The Simpsons Road Rage in the section where its mentioned, and not just the lead. Also "External links" need to go after "References". Gran2 18:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Done Thanks for the input, redlinks removed and the EL is in the right place. --MASEM 19:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note, redlinks are not a problem and removal of redlinks is not required for FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing about the characters in the game.
- The characters (both IMO and from sources) are non-notable, I mean, I can list them, but its not like they have a significant influence on gameplay.
- They are notable enough to have profiles in the game's mannual. Buc 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Manual would be a primary source and not sufficient to establish notability for fictional elements. Additionally, since there's no story at all, it would see strange to provide a list of characters. Its notable you can select them, and other games add more, but not exactly who they are. --MASEM 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- They are notable enough to have profiles in the game's mannual. Buc 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- The characters (both IMO and from sources) are non-notable, I mean, I can list them, but its not like they have a significant influence on gameplay.
- "must accumulate the most money" the most of who? who are they competing against?
- Done just changed to "accumulate money"
- Bit more about the gameplay in the lead.
- Done added a bit more, but going too much more detail I think either requires details that makes the lead too heavy and/or large
- Not sure the whole soundtrack for each of the games is needed in the series article.
- As noted, there was a plan to merge all the series articles into this one as, beyond the first, these other games are much less notable than the first; the soundtrack section would reflect that. It could go, though I'd inviscomment it if the merge/deletion of the other pages occur.
- There should be something about the sound track but the full list should be in the individual game articles. Buc 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI'll invisicomment it out. However, the section paragraph on that should remain since Bad Religon/Offspring are notable in the series and their lack in later games brough comment. --MASEM 13:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- "(green number in center)" centre
- It's primarily a game that was mainly big in the United States, it's using American spellings.
- "bonuses earned from stunt driving are multiplied by the number of passengers in the car" I think "number of passengers in the car multiplies the bonuses earned from stunt driving" is better.
- Done
- "each whom have a different" it's either "who" or "of whom"
- Done
- "(semi-)fictional" why the brackets?
- Done removed semi & brackets
- "gear shift" Did you mean gear lever?
- Done made to "gear shift level"
- Is minigames one word?
- Done hyphenated throughout
- "traffic are represented" is represented
- It's a grouping of "taxi, passengers, and traffic", I believe it's "are" in this case
- "can use their own stored" there
- This is definitely "their" as in "the fans' own music"
- "made a few attempts" how many is a few?
- Done changed to "has attempted"
- Ref #16 not entered right.
- Done corrected
- Surely this article fits into more than one Category
- Done added several
- Categories for the individual games are not needed in a series article. See for example another FA series page: Kingdom Hearts (series). Only one category. --Mika1h 15:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some ref have .com and some don't, be consistent
- Done .com removed from publisher field for those that had it
- I think it would be better if the links to the game articles in the "Games" section were incorporated into the text. At any rate they should say "Main article" not "See also".
- Done made the section headers the wikilinks to the games
- "(which lead IGN to comment that "Including this should be a no-brainer, but many PSP titles don't.")," why the brackets and why the full stop followed by a comma?
- Done removed the full stop and brackets.
- Order refs numerically.
- Refs are all done with WP's ref system, numbering is done automatically (there are noted problems with Firefox and multiple columns for this, nothing that can be done through WP)
- "different places -- seeing how it" why the double hyphen?
- It's a direct quote from the article, that can't be changed.
- "with an expected release date in middle of 2003" should be in past tence.
- Done changed to "and had a"
Buc 15:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's a few comments of those listed above I don't believe are correct fixes but I've made the edits to address the rest; thanks for the input. --MASEM 03:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - "which many have noted as a rip-off of the Crazy Taxi formula". No place for "many people" in Wikipedia :P You'll have name people or magazines (or whatever) that have said that.--Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 10:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done - "many" now "game reviewers" with additional refs to back this up. --MASEM 13:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's good enough.
Request(s):
- Lead is too long; may wish to break it up into two or integrate parts of it into the second paragraph. Learnedo 06:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done First lead para is about the games' release, the second is about the gameplay itself - hopefully that's what you mean... --MASEM 14:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose until fixed; it is otherwise worthy of promotion, so is worth the effort. The writing needs sifting through to polish and to pick up glitches such as:
- "When the player stops near their fare, seconds are added to a gameplay countdown timer, the passenger, also with a countdown timer, gets in the car; the player must then ...".
- "Crazy Taxi is a series of score attack racing video games, developed by Hitmaker and published by Sega, the first game appearing in arcades in 1999." Not a glitch so much as inelegant and hard to read—the last clause. Perhaps split with a semicolon and use past tense?
- "Starting with Crazy Taxi 2, the game added the ability to pick up a party of passengers, each who have a different destination." Ungrammatical, and as well, it's the developers who add.
- "The console games have also featured a set of mini-games that focus more on the driving aspect of the game." Just "... games feature ..."? Otherwise, possibly ambiguous and hard to read. More than what?
- Weed out most uses of "also"—redundant and clunky.
- MOS breach in the use of --. Read MOS on hyphens and dashes.
Now they're random issues in one small section. Please coopt new editors to help. Fresh eyes pick up stuff the original editors will never see. Tony (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Have requested a couple fresh eyes to look into copyedits, thanks. --MASEM 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done (pending additional comments) - have had a few people help work it and removed some of the noted points about (including the excessive use of Also and fixing the dashes/hyphens). --MASEM 17:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Support I've done a little copyediting for you, and fixed the rationales on two of the images to satisfy BetacommandBot. There are two things that someone more involved with the article should look at:
- Consider wikilinking the
datefield in {{cite web}} to allow user date preferences to apply. The template automatically wikilinksaccessdatebut notdatefor some reason. - Is the first "Gameplay" paragraph also covered by reference 5? If so, consider sticking a <ref> at the end of the paragraph to make it clear.
Good work. Anomie 12:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done on both accounts. --MASEM 14:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose - The article is looking real good. However I feel that some kind of "Development" section should be included before this passes FA. I realize that the series hasn't tried to make leaps and bounds with the gameplay, but there are other aspects that have changed over time. The graphics have varied from game to game and may have used different graphical engines, or whatever technical changes have occured. The inspiration and influences could be mentioned if they can be found. To be honest, I don't think much would be needed. A medium sized paragraph along with maybe the "Soundtrack" and "Legalities" sections as subsection. I believe that will make the article comprehensive. Other than that, I don't have much else to say. It's a good article everywhere else, but that chunk that's missing is kinda a big one. The good news it that some of looks to already be there, just not consolidated into one defined section. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
- Done (or at least an attempt to be done per any additional comments) - some of the development stuff was floating in other sections of the article, and I added a few more points I found in a couple additional interviews. Please let us know if this is what you are looking for. --MASEM 21:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very nice, I'd say that more than covers it. You got my support. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
- Support - Looked over it, and it's very nicely written and covers everything. Good job! ✗iℎi✗(talk) 23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yep everything looks good now. Buc 20:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support impressive work, covers every aspect of the series. igordebraga ≠ 23:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
This article has been vastly improved since the last nomination, and most of the previous comments have been taken into consideration. Over 250 edits have been made since that time to improve the quality of the article. There are ample inline citations, over 80, with a very clear and concise writing style. Ample photographs are included in the article to visually highlight some of the writing. To the best of my knowledge, all tables and templates meet Wikipedia's standards in formatting and design. I would appreciate your vote to approve this as a Featured Article. --Daysleeper47 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
I think you should change "Challenging old verities" to crime. Looking in the contents list one would have no idea where the crime section was located. Also, what does "Challenging old verities" mean anyway? Challenging old truth? You are talking about crime, might as well call it that. Every other city does. KnightLago 17:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - Support I agree with the above recommending that the section name be changed. Perhaps "Crime reputation". This section is good because it's honest. The city has been associated with gangsters, at least in the past. In wikipedia, all we want is honesty, not falsely positive or negative articles. Good article! How did al-Bireh become sister city? Any ideas? Mrs.EasterBunny 20:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Response to query Regarding al-Bireh, I don't know the details. I can tell you that Youngstown has a large Palestinian-born population. This may account for the sister city relationship with al-Bireh. twelsht 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's decent.
Remark: Attractions is pretty hefty. Are we trying to sell the town? Leranedo 02:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, some work needed still. I left sample edits; please see the edit summaries.[4] Attention is needed to overlinking and non-breaking hard spaces between numerical and non-numerical elements. I did numerous WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE fixes, but it would help to ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes in the page ranges. More importantly, the citations need attention. Many publishers are not identified, so reliability of sources can't be evaluated,some sources are dead links,and some refs aren't formatted correctly (see WP:CITE/ES). Named refs aren't employed, so there are repeat refs (see WP:FN). You could also shorten the citation list and simplify text editing significantly by created a References sectoin to list book sources, and then include only the page in the footnote citation with <ref>Author (year), p. x</ref>, instead of repeating all of that book information in every citation. Avoid using the word currently (example, "The only commercial route currently ... " and "Currently, local railroads only serve cargo trains ... ").SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Reply SandyGeorgia, thanks for the comments. I have corrected all of the issues except the citation problem, including delinking repetitive links, worked to remove overlinking and Brightorange run the script to correct the dashes. To the WP:FA moderator, I would appreciate if this nomination was left open until I can correct the remaining citation issues, probably tomorrow or Thursday. I believe this article is close and would hate to have to renominate this article needlessly for these issues when they can be corrected right away. Thanks! --Daysleeper47 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm starting to review now, but I'm not sure I'll finish tonight. By the way, I prefer to strike my own commentary, as I can use the list to check each item. Brighterorange hasn't been through yet I see. I also see missing publishers; I'll do a few citation edits as samples. See WP:CITE/ES; all sources should have publishers, author and date should be supplied when available, and last access date on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I put in an additional request to Brighterorange, since refs were changed since he went through, and hyphens were re-inserted on page ranges; those should be endashes. Still reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- {{USCensusPop}} displays negative percent changes with a hyphen rather than a minus sign; I put in a request for it to be fixed on the talk page there. The error in the template is beyond your control, but perhaps you can follow up on my post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I put in an additional request to Brighterorange, since refs were changed since he went through, and hyphens were re-inserted on page ranges; those should be endashes. Still reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I left a string of sample edits;[5] the biggest issue is that publishers still aren't identified correctly on sources, named refs are employed incorrectly (resulting in misleading sources), and there is other missing info on sources. There's also some WP:UNITS attention needed on nbsps.I agree that the article is close, though. Let me know when you've completed the citation work and I'll have another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm starting to review now, but I'm not sure I'll finish tonight. By the way, I prefer to strike my own commentary, as I can use the list to check each item. Brighterorange hasn't been through yet I see. I also see missing publishers; I'll do a few citation edits as samples. See WP:CITE/ES; all sources should have publishers, author and date should be supplied when available, and last access date on websources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There are still a number of dead links, and an independent source is required to place Dana School of Music in the same class as Oberlin.Is it The Vindicator, The Youngstown Vindicator or The Youngstown Daily Vindicator? It's labeled three different ways in the citations. I removed the word "elite" from culture center (POV); if the NYT article uses that word, it can be re-added, but since the article isn't online, I couldn't check. You might want to run through the article one last time to check for things like that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)- Depending on the date of issue, the name could be any of the three. The Youngstown Daily Vindicator became the Youngstown Vindicator which became the Vindicator around 1990. Should the citations reflect the name today or the name at the time of issue? --Daysleeper47 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect it's best to stick with the name at the time the article was published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I also checked all the links in the Notes section and didn't find any dead links. Am I looking in the wrong spot to check these links? --Daysleeper47 19:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- The only remaining dead link is to the golf course; I'm striking my oppose since most of the work is done; it's only that one link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Query Given that the local newspaper altered its name over time, it might be less confusing to refer to it simply as The (Youngstown) Vindicator? Any thoughts? twelsht 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Best to stick with the name at the time the article was published, as theoretically that's the way it would be in a library. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Depending on the date of issue, the name could be any of the three. The Youngstown Daily Vindicator became the Youngstown Vindicator which became the Vindicator around 1990. Should the citations reflect the name today or the name at the time of issue? --Daysleeper47 19:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
OpposeSupport—It's quite good now; I've made a few tweaks; can you change the hyphens to proper minus signs for the temperatures, in two tables (or en dashes, but the former are below the edit box as a 'click', which can be copied and pasted after the first one). One "United States" among otherwise consistent "U.S.". Check what "poverty line" means—is it linkable to a specific US p l? 1a. Here are random samples of the need to bring on board a copy-editor or two with a track-record in similar good articles (research FAs, edit histories and summaries).
- Done"when the U.S. steel industry shifted production overseas in the 1970s"—Now are you sure that this doesn't oversimplify the transition? Perhaps there was a degree of direct capital transfer to low-cost economies by the local companies, but I suspect that most of the "rust belt" phenomenon occurred through just import competition and plain job and market loss, without directd "shift of production".
- Done Eight years ago is the most recent population estimate?
- 2006 census estimate added
- Done "comprises around 697,481 residents"—Sure it's not 697,481.6?
- Done "is centrally located between New York City and Chicago"—no, "lies midway between".
- Done "became a popular destination for immigrants from Eastern Europe, Italy, and Greece as well."—Why "as well"? Are we missing some point here? Straight after this, weed out the "also".
- Done "Urban neighborhoods are dotted with religious landmarks including churches, synagogues, and mosques."—Wouldn't it be neater as just "Urban neighborhoods are dotted with churches, synagogues, and mosques."? Tony (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Tony, Thanks for your comments. They were fair and accurate. The decline of the U.S. steel industry was more complicated than the second paragraph suggested, and the article has stylistic weaknesses. After reading your comments, I made changes based on some of your recommendations. There is more work to be done. Here is a list of changes I've made so far:
- modified misleading passage on decline of steel industry
- included 2006 estimate of Youngstown's population (the next official census will be conducted in 2010)
- added details on Connecticut Western Reserve--perhaps a brief description of Northwest Territory and CWR is in order
- weeded out extraneous language (1st half of article)
- modified awkward phrases and sentences (1st half of article)
- I plan to look over the article tomorrow. Any further comments and recommendations would be appreciated. Thanks. - twelsht (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: Recommendations on ways to improve this article should be referred to Daysleeper47. Thanks. -- twelsht (talk) 13:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::After reading Tony's comments, it appears to me that they seem more concerned with writer's style that substance. Your style is just different, not better. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I remove my comment of objection. After reading it again, I apologize and have found them to be fair and substantive. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I share Daysleeper's concerns. A few of Tony's comments were helpful. He noted that an introductory statement on the decline of the U.S. steel industry was misleading. I modified this statement a few days ago. In response to another comment, I added a 2006 population estimate for the municipality. The issue of style is more subjective, but I acted on several of his recommendations. While this article would benefit from the input of a seasoned FA copy editor, it has already been through multiple peer reviews. Some reviewers described its narrative style as clear and concise. I hope that this article won't be held back on the basis of largely subjective concerns. While I can no longer participate in this process, I wanted to lend support to Daysleeper's comment. Thanks, again, for your feedback. Respectfully, twelsht (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Appreciation: This is a brief note of thanks to those who assessed Youngstown, Ohio. Participants in the Youngstown project are especially grateful to SandyGeorgia, who provided numerous sample edits and worked closely with us to improve the main article. Sincerely, twelsht (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
Okay, by no means an expert in this field but, nevertheless, my comments follow for what they're worth!
- Note: I added comments and replied, and will add more as I have time. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Lead is a little confusing, you have geography, then history then census then a little more geography.
- Reply: I didn't add any new text, but I reordered it in a manner which I think is more organized. -Daysleeper47
- Done Image:City seal.gif needs work. There's a fair use licence attributed without source or copyright information (see the precise wording of the template there) and the image is used in lots of articles - a fair use rationale needs to be added for each and every fair use.
- Citations shouldn't have a space between them and what they're citing. Also they need to be placed immediately to the right of punctuation where possible - see WP:CITE.
- Done Why a whole sentence in parentheses? In fact, there are a couple...
- No need to repeatedly use same citation in consecutive sentences e.g. [30], [43].
- "Many observers have pointed out, however, that Youngstown has yet to move into a "post-steel" economy." - one of the few sentences without a citation which really needs more than one!
- Done I've no idea but is downtown usually capitalised or not? At least there should be some consistency within the article.
- Reply: I only found one, perhaps someone corrected them before me. I left it lowercase unless it starts a sentence.
- Done "...fiercest competitor..." sounds a bit peacock to me unless it's in the citation...
- Reply: The word is not in the article, and has been removed. The article is not available for free, so I the byline and headline, found the article, and searched again with the word 'fiercest' and didn't find it -Daysleeper47
- It seems like the last sentence of most sections have no citation.
- Done "... several decades ago (in the mid-1960s)..." one or the other...
- "...despite intermittent financial challenges." - citation required.
- Done "This unusual museum..." what makes it unusual?
- Reply: I removed the word 'unusual'. While the museum looks at working-class studies, it isn't unusual enough to warrant the word. -Daysleeper47
- Done Big space toward the end of the Sports section, and if one of the boxers is redlinked, is he really notable? (not an accusation, more of a question!)
- Reply: Greg Richardson is a notable bantamweight boxer with a 38-8-1 records.
- Done Sports table seems a bit unexplained...
- Reply: Agreed; table was removed as the table text was already explained in the article's main body. -Daysleeper47
- Done "Observers note the absence of a single new car dealership operating within the city limits, and also observe that city residents are often forced to do their shopping in the surrounding suburbs of Boardman, Niles, Austintown, or Liberty Township." - again, "Observers note... etc" needs to be cited.
- Reply: I removed the sentence. I couldn't find a reliable online citation and my book resources are currently unavailable. If I find something, I will re-add it. -Daysleeper47
- Done Media section is entirely unreferenced.
- Reply: I rewrote the section and include citations. I removed many of the bulleted lists and worked it into prose. -Daysleeper47
Please take all with a pinch of salt, I'm more used to reading and writing about footballers so I may not have got the hang of this! Let me know if I can help in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
FYI: Because of the Thanksgiving holiday, I will be out of town until Sunday morning and have little internet access to follow this FA-nom. I made many of the changes suggested and hope to follow up with the rest after I return. --Daysleeper47 (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Hi! I believe that this article should be nominated because the page is very well written. The article reached WP:GA status without any objections, and might as well be a featured article. Please see the GA review here. Limetolime 20:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I gave the GA review. The article is unbelievably well sourced. Of course, if you could find one or two free-use images to add to it, such as perhaps a picture of one of those actors or writers/producers, etc. in the sections where they are discussed, but that's not a dealbreaker. I'll see if I can find some tasteful stuff for that on Wikimedia Commons. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 23:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC).
- Done -- I just added (6) free-use images to the article. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support - I just formatted some refs and cleaned up some date fragments, but there is still more in there, other then that I its good in my opinion --Cloveious 06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The first thing I looked at was the infobox, and I saw red links. Please fix them so that readers won't be taken to a blank page. O2 (息 • 吹) 21:40, 01 November 2007 (GMT)
- Done -- Unlinked the red links. Limetolime 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:Red links; redlinks are not a problem and do not constitute a valid objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well-written, and while most pictures are improvised they work right (though Reeve and/or Routh could be nice to add). igordebraga ≠ 22:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I think the lead is too short for such a long article.Legalbeaver 21:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done -- Extended intro. Limetolime (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Self-nomination, "The Joy of Sect." - Actually, not so much a self-nomination as a collaborative team effort. I must say this has been one of my most pleasant experiences on the project so far, working with these other dedicated and talented editors, they've all been great. The article The Joy of Sect became a Good Article on October 27, 2007, and its Peer Review finished on November 2, and I got some good ideas from that as well. Since then, we have had several different copyeditors look over the article, none of whom had previously been involved in its editing and quality process. The article uses (20) cited sources, (6) images - three fair use with fair use rationales given on their image pages, and three free-use images from Wikimedia Commons. I now submit this article as a Featured Article Candidate. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, as nom. Cirt 21:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support as GA reviewer. Article is well done and interesting. Alientraveller 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This statment -"The Joy of Sect" received generally positive reception in the press, and in books and analytical papers on The Simpsons.- seems a bit exagerated considering you don't have an aggregate review house, or at least enough reviews in the section to actually support the idea behind the statement. I'd simply just remove it, and merge those two weak paragraphs into one stronger paragraph. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Thank you, that reads better. Cirt 00:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
- Comment - Someone might want to summarize the lead a little better, specifically the second paragraph, which basically restates what's in the "Reception" section almost verbatim. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 00:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I shortened that 2nd paragraph a bit more. Cirt 00:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support - Very interesting information and very nicely written. Good job Curt! ✗iℎi✗(talk) 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Cirt 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Oppose- Article reads more as an essay or an op-ed piece than an encyclopedic article. There is an underlying current in the article, such as the introduction of the term "new religious movements" in a context that is not present in the sources provided, that makes this article one that could have been written by an anti-cult advocacy group, rather than being an article about a deliriously funny parody on the subject. It also fails to attribute many of the comparisons made, stating these as facts rather than opinions. The use of real photos from groups labeled as "cults" is another example of this subtle but ever-present undercurrent. (Can you imagine a photo of Jesus crucified in the article Simpsons_Bible_Stories, or a photo of the Pope in The Father, The Son & The Holy Guest Star?). Not ready for prime-time, unless rewritten. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- Sorry, not ready yet.
- There are still lots of punctuation errors, especially with regards to colons. I made a few changes, but I haven't combed through the entire article yet.
- While taking Bart to the airport to see a local football team arrive after their defeat, Homer sees a man and a woman named Glen and Jane telling people about a new religion, the Movementarians. see...sees. More word variety.
- Mr. Burns, learning that Movementarianism is gaining much popularity in Springfield, makes a new religion of his own. But the Springfieldians are convinced not to praise him as their new god when he catches fire. Some elaboration would be helpful. How does Burns catch on fire?
- Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she knows it is stupid to say "The Leader" created everything Words like "stupid" just never sound right in an encyclopedia article.
- There must be some negative criticism of this episode. I mean, it's the origin of "Jerkass Homer," right? Zagalejo^^^ 19:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Yes... another example is how Turner's book (Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation) has been carefully quote-mined for effect, missing important context such as the reference to the "Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be." and "Further evidence of pop's quasi-religious status is at any rate not hard to find." (both of these are in the chapter dedicated to this episode, p.270) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- It also misses the fact that this episode is used by the Farmington Institute (UK) for Christian religious education: "The Joy of Sect: This lesson is appropriate for KS 3-4 studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject."[30] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I have addressed the three specific points brought up by Zagalejo (talk · contribs), above. It appears that Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) has removed the two free-use Wikimedia Commons images of new religious movements parodied in the episode, as per a suggestion from Jossi (talk · contribs), above. I am looking through the "Farmington Institute (UK) for Christian religious education" source, and will add from it to the article. Cirt 22:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
- Same treatment has been applied in the article to Irwin, Sklobe and Conrad's The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Home, about which the journal Christian Century, (Nov 21, 2001) says: One of the wittiest and most successful shows on TV has attracted some clever commentators. Mark Pinsky, a religion reporter for a daily newspaper, documents the many religious elements in the show, and also notes that religion and religious adherents are fondly observed as well as relentlessly mocked on The Simpsons. Like many fans, he is struck by the way the show, for all its cynicism about mainstream values, often ends up affirming community and family, even a family as wildly dysfunctional as Homer and Marge's. But Carl Matheson, in one of the probing essays collected by philosopher William Irwin and colleagues, thinks the heartwarming aspects of the show merely disguise moral emptiness and a withering "hyper-irony." The comedy is based "less on a shared sense of humanity than on a sense of world-weary cleverer-than-thouness." With its avalanche of one-liners and its knowing stream of allusions to popular culture, the show exists only to advance the cult of one-upmanship--to mock everything and everyone for the sake of the next laugh. All of these writers are right about one thing: the wit and the en durance of The Simpsons are worth pondering.
- Clearly it is great to have good sources, but sound editorial judgment about how to use these sources for a neutral presentation of a subject, is also required. Just having many sources available does not a good article make... That book is used as a source to assert that "The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle", is another example of pushing the editorializing a bit too far (read page 48 of that book to get a sense). The book is also used to support the very obvious WP:SYN, asserting that the book "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". This article is deserving of a serious re-write and maybe even a POV tag to boot. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Other dubious editorializing/ possible WP:SYN violations in the Themes section includes:
- The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult" — when actually they do not use the term "new religious movement" or "cult" in that source. They use the term "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as "organized religion in general", which was conveniently removed from the cite: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." )
- Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained...
- Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him. For example, instead of traditional mathematics textbooks, the children on the compound learn from:" Arithmetic the Leader's Way and Science for Leader Lovers."
- ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out, I will attempt to address some of the above points. Cirt 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Sure, take your time. I have not revised how other sources have been used in the article, but these will all need to be revised at a certain point. Given the serious problems with the ones I checked, I do not think that we can assume that this is not pervasive throughout the article. Maybe an in-depth review is the best way forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinions and personal input here are appreciated. I would also like to give time to see how others view the quality of this article at the present time. Evidently from above already, there are some that have differing viewpoints as to its present level of high quality. Cirt 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, an FAC review is not done until it is done. The feedback is assessed in its entirety as later comments may have an impact on earlier ones. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your opinions and personal input here are appreciated. I would also like to give time to see how others view the quality of this article at the present time. Evidently from above already, there are some that have differing viewpoints as to its present level of high quality. Cirt 00:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Sure, take your time. I have not revised how other sources have been used in the article, but these will all need to be revised at a certain point. Given the serious problems with the ones I checked, I do not think that we can assume that this is not pervasive throughout the article. Maybe an in-depth review is the best way forward. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for pointing this out, I will attempt to address some of the above points. Cirt 00:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Note: - You are incorrect about the A.V. Club use, see [31]. The title of the segment on the episode is called: "11. Springfield joins a cult ("The Joy Of Sect," 1998)". I think we can safely say that since this is the title of the segment from the A.V. Club, that that is what they meant. Cirt 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- I have made my comments, which you are welcome to acknowledge or dismiss. That is up to you and other involved editors. The text says: The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult", which is an obvious WP:SYN violation. All you can say is "The A.V. Club described Springfield joining a cult" and then proceed to describe their use of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as referring to organized religion in general. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Well, I addressed that one point, which was easy enough, just quoted the exact name of The A.V. Club title of their segment, in the article. I will continue to try to work on some of the above more specific suggestions. Cirt 01:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not really done... You forgot, again, to add the mention of organized religion in general. The full quote: The episode also references shadowy sects such as Scientology, the Moonies, the M.O.V.E. group, and organized religion in general: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- And this text that you edited, is again, WP:OR: However, the A.V. Club also noted the ambiguity of the term "cult", quoting Bart from the episode: "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." The AV club does not address any ambiguity at all. I do not understand what is the need for editorializing in that manner. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - More specific, removed "ambiguity" reference, added "organized religion" reference, and simply quoted from the Bart quote. Cirt 01:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- I think I have said enough already about this article, this page not being a discussion page for the article in question but an assessment of its state to become a Featured article. My opinion remains that it requires considerable work before re-submitting. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your opinion, and your input with us. As you can see, both Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) and myself have begun to implement some of your changes. As we address some of the other suggestions from above, I will note them here, below. Cirt 02:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- And this text that you edited, is again, WP:OR: However, the A.V. Club also noted the ambiguity of the term "cult", quoting Bart from the episode: "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." The AV club does not address any ambiguity at all. I do not understand what is the need for editorializing in that manner. Care to explain? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not really done... You forgot, again, to add the mention of organized religion in general. The full quote: The episode also references shadowy sects such as Scientology, the Moonies, the M.O.V.E. group, and organized religion in general: As Bart says, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have made my comments, which you are welcome to acknowledge or dismiss. That is up to you and other involved editors. The text says: The A.V. Club described the New religious movement portrayed in the episode as a "cult", which is an obvious WP:SYN violation. All you can say is "The A.V. Club described Springfield joining a cult" and then proceed to describe their use of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups" as well as referring to organized religion in general. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Added the Farmington Trust citation to the article, as suggested from above. Cirt 02:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, we all share input and opinions in these reviews. While you are it, you may consider adding the necessary context about the Farmington Trust. You missed the most important bit "studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject." Without it, your text does not mean much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I added that exact quote, it's already there in the article. Cirt 02:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Yes, we all share input and opinions in these reviews. While you are it, you may consider adding the necessary context about the Farmington Trust. You missed the most important bit "studying the more outrageous manifestations of ‘religion’ or those simply alert to the teachings of Christ on the subject." Without it, your text does not mean much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I changed "Key characteristics of cult techniques were pointed out and explained... " to "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained" - upon a suggestion from above. Cirt 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Added: Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time." -- to the "Themes" section, on a suggestion from above. Cirt 04:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Changed: "In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "The Joy of Sect" in analyzing Marge Simpson's virtuous personality traits. The authors noted that Marge's escape from the Movementarian cult commune illustrated her bravery, and they compared her values to those of Aristotle." to: In The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer, the authors cited "escaping from a cult commune in 'The Joy of Sect'" as evidence of "Aristotle's virtuous personality traits in Marge." - using actual quotes from the book, to stay tighter to the source text. Upon suggestion from above. Cirt 04:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I took out the sentence: "Emphasis on totalitarianism surrounding "the Leader" is seen through an analysis of the Movementarian's publications about him.", and instead replaced it with - The Psychology of the Simpsons writes that "the Leader" is seen as an authority figure, because "He has knowledge or abilties that others do not, but want." - Per a suggestion from above to remove that prior sentence. Cirt 05:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support Curt, good writing. Jossi...your name sounds familiar, btw. Can't quite place it. I've seen his edits above and can't find fault with his research, approach to the topic, or flow. Jossi...Jossi...Where have I heard that name before. Someone refresh my memory. Anyway, strong support. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 05:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was the first one to welcome you to Wikipedia (see your talk page), and you left a message on my talk page on your fifth day in Wikipedia baclk in August: [32]. You can always ask directly rather than asking "someone" :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for acknowledging the "good writing", Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum, I appreciate that. Cirt 06:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Upon suggestion from above, changed usage of The Psychology of the Simpsons: D'oh! book. Removing the sentence: "took the opportunity to educate the reader not just about sects within the episode, but also about the methodology of cults on a broader level". - and replaced instead with a direct quote from the book itself. Cirt 06:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- More issues: This text: "Planet Simpson also notes the Simpson family's chant at the end of the episode, as evidence of a "Cult of Pop", which the book describes as the "true high-growth quasi-religious cult of our time" is another example of editorializing. The book used as a source makes two different statements which the editor of the article conflated into one by mistake. Page 42 of the book has two different statements, the first one:
"We are watching Fox" they chant. As 5F23 ends, there is little doubt of the the identity of the the true high-growth quasi religious cult of our time.
- ...which clearly refers to Television.
- The second statement is from a paragraph down the page:
It is not just TV—although with one study estimating that the average American TV is on for seven hours a forth minutes each day, TV's certainly a primary pulpit for many of this cult's major deities. But beyond the chattering household cyclops, there are a host of other demigods and churches in the pantheon. There are movies and video games, musicians and authors, sports teams and fashion designers. This is the great and good Cult of Pop, a fast growing mutation ersatz religion that has filled the gaping hole in the West's social fabric where organized religion used to be.
- It is this disregard for staying close to the sources and the indulging in dubious editorializing that worries me about this article. Or is it maybe a lack of attention to detail in the rush to get this article to FA status? As said before, all sources in that article will need to be verified as it pertains to their use ain the article text. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I split the above referenced sentence into two separate sentences - one referring to the "Cult of Pop", and the other referring to the Television analysis. Thanks for pointing that out. Your opinions about "dubious editorializing" are noted, and we are working on addressing specific points that you bring up, as you may note from above. Cirt 23:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- It is great that these things are getting fixed, but given the problems that were identified, would not be wise to do a thorough check of the article and resubmitting at a later date? I do not think I should invest all my wiki-time this week to check all other sources. That is for editors that want this article to be a FA to do. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Given that there are other editors above that disagree with you, and feel that the article is currently of a high quality at present time, and not "editorialized", as you put it, I think it is best at this point in time to let the FA run its course, and hopefully get some input from other editors that have not yet voiced their own opinions on this FAC page. Cirt 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Hmmmm.... How can these editors disagree with me? My concerns where raised after their comments. In any case, this would be for the FAC director to assess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it would certainly be for the FAC director to assess. However, I am simply stating that the majority of the text in this FAC so far has been from one editor. It would simply be interesting to wait and see what other editors think of the article's quality status at the present time. Cirt 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Sure, no problem. My concerns are hopefully well presented already. I would also argue that there is a need for some quality time to elapse between getting GA status to applying for FA review. A few days (in this case just a week) may not be enough for an article to get to a stage that is worth presenting to FAC. Not all GA articles are worth to be FAC, and those that do may need further work before submitting to FA review. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, it would certainly be for the FAC director to assess. However, I am simply stating that the majority of the text in this FAC so far has been from one editor. It would simply be interesting to wait and see what other editors think of the article's quality status at the present time. Cirt 23:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- Hmmmm.... How can these editors disagree with me? My concerns where raised after their comments. In any case, this would be for the FAC director to assess. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Given that there are other editors above that disagree with you, and feel that the article is currently of a high quality at present time, and not "editorialized", as you put it, I think it is best at this point in time to let the FA run its course, and hopefully get some input from other editors that have not yet voiced their own opinions on this FAC page. Cirt 23:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC).
- And yet more issues: This text The book noted that an exploitation of group mentality is used during the six-hour Movementarian indoctrination film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish . There is no mention of "exploitation of group mentality" in that book, again a too free hand in editorializing. I think that the article should be delisted from GA, so that the material in the article can be re-assessed against the sources provided. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Addressed Jossi (talk · contribs)'s suggestion, from above, re: the "groupthink" reference. Changed it to a direct quote from the book, so there is no ambiguity here:
The book noted the techniques used during the six-hour Movementarian recruitment film, in which those who get up to leave are reminded that they are allowed to leave whenever they wish. They are, however, questioned in front of the group as to specifically why they wish to leave, and these individuals end up staying to finish watching the film. This spotlight is then described as "subtle pressure," in contrast to the "razor wire, landmines, angry dogs, crocodiles and evil mystery bubble Marge confronts to escape, while being reminded again that she is certainly free to leave.
Cirt 04:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Jossi (talk · contribs) -- All I am noting is that you have made (29) out of the total (64) edits or so to this FAC page. It might be helpful for you to take a break, take a breather for a bit, and let other individual editors provide some input here. As you can see, your suggestions have been noted and implemented into the article. But it might be a good idea to step back abit and allow others the chance to voice their opinions as well. Cirt 04:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- This is a wiki, so others are not impeded to post their opinions as well, and by the look of it my 29 comments to this FAC review have removed problems that no one found before. Stepping back is needed in edit wars or when the edit gets hot, which is obviously not the case here. (A "thank you," rather than a "go away" would have been more appropriate here, don't you think?) In any case I have already made my point, and despite the fixes you made to the problems I found, the use of all other sources will need to be checked as well on the same basis and in the same manner given the concerns raised. There are 20 sources in the article, and only a couple have been checked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jo, I wanna work on this article with Curt and Scorp, and just watching the exchange above, I need some breathing room, please. I think if you stepped back and looked, it seems as though you have some real feelings about this article. I dunno if it's the Simpsons or the topic, but it does look like an edit war. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can edit the article to your heart's content. This page is not an article, but a discussion about the status of the article to be considered for featured article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, no one is asking you to "go away", that was your own personal interpretation. Merely to step back and take a break, take a breather, and allow others to post their personal opinions as you have done. Cirt 15:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- My comments were neither "opinions" nor "suggestions". They were all factual problems with the article, mainly poor use of sources, misinterpretation of sources, original research violations dressed up as representation of sources, and other poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just looked at the section, and I'm not sure what you're concerns are. I have read several of the books, and the subjects there are discussed in them. I'll admit that the section is rather disorganized, but I don't think it's as bad on the OR as you claim it is. -- Scorpion0422 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not now, Scorpion, as the most obvious problems have been identified and corrected. My concern is about the other sources that have not checked. Basically, how can one trust now that the other sources used in the article have not been misrepresented? Can we safely assume the other sources have not been misinterpreted? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- But under your logic, almost every single article relating to religion or with any kind of analysis/themes section would be unable to reach FA status due to those concerns. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- That is not true, Scorpio. An article is an article is an article, and the requirements for FAC status are the same regardless of subject. I am not arguing that this article cannot get to FA status, it surely can. But it needs to be revised against the sources with a fine tooth comb, given the problems found already. After that is done, it can be re-submitted for review again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Read criteria (c) on WP:FA? (my highlight):
- c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
- That is not true, Scorpio. An article is an article is an article, and the requirements for FAC status are the same regardless of subject. I am not arguing that this article cannot get to FA status, it surely can. But it needs to be revised against the sources with a fine tooth comb, given the problems found already. After that is done, it can be re-submitted for review again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- But under your logic, almost every single article relating to religion or with any kind of analysis/themes section would be unable to reach FA status due to those concerns. -- Scorpion0422 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe not now, Scorpion, as the most obvious problems have been identified and corrected. My concern is about the other sources that have not checked. Basically, how can one trust now that the other sources used in the article have not been misrepresented? Can we safely assume the other sources have not been misinterpreted? I don't think so. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just looked at the section, and I'm not sure what you're concerns are. I have read several of the books, and the subjects there are discussed in them. I'll admit that the section is rather disorganized, but I don't think it's as bad on the OR as you claim it is. -- Scorpion0422 16:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- My comments were neither "opinions" nor "suggestions". They were all factual problems with the article, mainly poor use of sources, misinterpretation of sources, original research violations dressed up as representation of sources, and other poor scholarship. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Jo, I wanna work on this article with Curt and Scorp, and just watching the exchange above, I need some breathing room, please. I think if you stepped back and looked, it seems as though you have some real feelings about this article. I dunno if it's the Simpsons or the topic, but it does look like an edit war. Arcana imperii Ascendo tuum 12:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is a wiki, so others are not impeded to post their opinions as well, and by the look of it my 29 comments to this FAC review have removed problems that no one found before. Stepping back is needed in edit wars or when the edit gets hot, which is obviously not the case here. (A "thank you," rather than a "go away" would have been more appropriate here, don't you think?) In any case I have already made my point, and despite the fixes you made to the problems I found, the use of all other sources will need to be checked as well on the same basis and in the same manner given the concerns raised. There are 20 sources in the article, and only a couple have been checked. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 10:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- My argument is that, given the few sources I checked which where not accurately represented, we cannot assume that other sources used have been accurately represented. Thus, my call for a thorough review, and a later re-submission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am glad you started this out with My argument is that, because all along this is your own opinion about the use of these sources and their accurate representation in the article. Your suggestions have been implemented and I did not raise any objections to your interpretation of the sources, however they are still your own opinions about them, and your own opinions do not denote "fact" and are not a ruling about actual "problems" - merely your own perceptions about the use of the sources themselves. Cirt 17:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- My argument is that, given the few sources I checked which where not accurately represented, we cannot assume that other sources used have been accurately represented. Thus, my call for a thorough review, and a later re-submission. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
<<<<< I have made my arguments, and do not see the need to repeat them. I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections. In this regards, my view remains that other sections of the article would also benefit from a thorough check for assessing if it accurately represents the sources used or not. Good luck with the article, and if any of the involved editors want to engage me in discussing further aspects of this article, please ping me on my talk. Happy editing! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- My thanks go out to Bignole (talk · contribs), for your wise words on both my and Jossi (talk · contribs)'s talk page about ending this back and forth discussion, which was taking up 84% of the FAC page. Thank you Bignole, much appreciated. I think we have both gotten your message, and I will continue to address concerns if other editors bring them up here. I am glad that Jossi stated above: "I leave this discussion now with the satisfaction that my comments have, if anything, made this article closer to being worthy of the FA star, specifically about criteria (c) in one of the sections." That is appreciated. Cirt 17:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC).
- Comment What are "embedded references to popular culture"? How are they different from regular references to popular culture? Zagalejo^^^ 21:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the following sentence could use some elaboration: In Ned Flanders's rumpus room, Marge brings back her children by promising them hover-bikes, which turn out to be fake. Zagalejo^^^ 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I took a crack at rewording it. Is it better? -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I should have been more clear. The last part ("which turn out to be fake") is what seems vague to me. I haven't watched this episode in a while, so I honestly don't remember exactly what happens in that scene. Zagalejo^^^ 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Addressing some of Zagalejo (talk · contribs)'s points, I removed the word "embedded" the sentence works fine without it, and I changed the "hover-bikes" sentence, using a dash instead of a comma, improves readability a tad. If this is still unclear, we can break it up into two sentences, explaining exactly what Marge did. Cirt 00:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the hoverbikes thing is still somewhat vague. Did Marge merely say she had hoverbikes? Did she tempt the kids with something that looked/sounded like a hoverbike... ? Zagalejo^^^ 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - I added a 2nd sentence, to make that portion more clear. Cirt 05:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- OK, better. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Cirt 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- OK, better. Zagalejo^^^ 05:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid the hoverbikes thing is still somewhat vague. Did Marge merely say she had hoverbikes? Did she tempt the kids with something that looked/sounded like a hoverbike... ? Zagalejo^^^ 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I should have been more clear. The last part ("which turn out to be fake") is what seems vague to me. I haven't watched this episode in a while, so I honestly don't remember exactly what happens in that scene. Zagalejo^^^ 21:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I took a crack at rewording it. Is it better? -- Scorpion0422 21:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- More comments
- Our discussion of the Mr. Burns subplot seems kind of tacked on. Is there a better way to mention it without ruining the flow of the "Plot" section?
- The children initially resist brainwashing, but Glen and Jane have their ways: Bart is taken by their Li'l Bastard Brainwashing Kit; Lisa decides that getting good grades is important even though she disagrees with saying that "The Leader" created everything; and Maggie is brainwashed by Barney the Dinosaur. Two comments: 1) Some explanation of what the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit" actually is might be useful. Even casual fans may not recognize that "Lil' Bastard" is a running gag on the show. 2) It might be nice to describe the Movementarian school system in slightly more detail before describing how Lisa was brainwashed. Just for clarity's sake.
- Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; Lovejoy throws his collar on the ground and stomps on it. When I first read this, I thought that "he" referred to Homer. Unclear pronoun antecedent.
- Is it Fox or FOX? we use both in the article.
- I have to run now, but I'll have more to say later.Zagalejo^^^ 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Expanded the section on Mr. Burns as the leader of his own new religious movement, per suggestion from Zagalejo (talk · contribs). Will work on the other three suggestions as well. Cirt 22:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Expanded the plot section with an explanation of the "Lil' Bastard Brainwashing Kit", as well as an explanation of how Lisa was brainwashed. Trying not to make the plot too long with all these new explanations, but you're right, a little clarity for the reader is a good thing. Cirt 22:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Marge then regrets that he was telling the truth; - Replaced the pronoun here with "The Leader", for clarity. Cirt 22:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Replaced instances of "Fox" in the article with "FOX" - except inside of the citations that refer to "20th Century Fox", in that case I think it's okay to leave it as is. Cirt 22:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support now, and after the substantial corrections that have been made since the nomination, and thanks to the work of all involved, the article is in good shape, so I change my comment to support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some more comments I've been fiddling around with the prose, and I'll probably be fiddling with it for at least a few more days, so any comments or questions about that are welcome. In the meantime, here are some content related issues:
- Is the Rover actually a "vehicle", as described in the lead?
- I noticed that I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide notes that the episode is "another one where the central joke isn't strong enough to last the whole episode". I think we should include that quote in the reception section, since it'd be nice to mention some criticism of the episode. Zagalejo^^^ 07:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The Rover is discussed in more detail at the article on Rover (The Prisoner). I don't think this particular article would be a good place to get into great detail on that, simply to say that there was a reference to it is enough, we don't want to get too descriptive and tangential. Cirt 07:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
- We don't really have to add any more details about it; I was just wondering if "vehicle" is the proper term to use. Zagalejo^^^ 07:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It appears per the article Rover (The Prisoner), that yes, it is. I suppose "device" or "security device" would also work. Cirt 07:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done, added the quote from I Can't Believe It's a Bigger and Better Updated Unofficial Simpsons Guide, as suggested above by Zagalejo (talk · contribs). Cirt 07:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
- Another comment Here's something that shouldn't be too hard to fix. I noticed in the "Themes" section that we switch back and forth between the present tense and the past tense. When you're talking about the content of books, you generally use the present tense. Zagalejo^^^ 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Changed most of the tenses to present tense, left, I think one reference in past tense, but it actually reads okay. Cirt 18:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC).
- Support — Well written, well referenced. Good job. (Ibaranoff24 07:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC))
- Some comments
- I think this is misleading (from the lead): Homer and Bart are initially introduced to a pair of young Movementarians recruiters in an airport. They both become brainwashed, and Homer moves his family into the cult compound. The way the sentences are organized, you'd think that Homer and Bart were brainwashed before the whole family moved to the compound. In fact, Bart wasn't brainwashed until later.
- I don't think we're always clear that O'Donnell is merely the credited writer. That seems to be an important point to make, since three other writers had a substantial role in building this episode. Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Addressed one point - fixed intro sentence, it's only Homer that becomes brainwashed at first, the rest of the family don't get brainwashed til after they move into the cult compound. Cirt 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Addressed second point - Made it clear that Steve O'Donnell was the lead writer on the episode, not just the only writer. Cirt 21:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC).
- More comments
- There are still tense problems in the "Themes" section. A sentence like "Key recruitment techniques used by the Movementarians were pointed out and explained..." should be in the present tense; we're describing the contents of a book. (That sentence is rather awkward, anyway. Recast it in the active voice, and find a single-word replacement for "pointed out".)
- I'm also concerned about the general organization in the "Themes" section. None of the paragraphs (except for the last) have a clear, unifying idea. They're just hodgepodges of quotes from different books, and they're somewhat difficult to read. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much I'd be able to do with that section myself, since I only own the Turner book.
- What exactly is the "Farmington Trust", as mentioned in the "Reception" section? Zagalejo^^^ 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sigh. Okay, okay, I will address these three more points, from above, and note it here, below. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
- I hope you can appreciate that we have done a lot of work on the article itself, and it's been improved significantly due to your many above suggestions. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
- I know you've been working hard, and I don't mean to discourage you. I just think certain things could still be better. Zagalejo^^^ 21:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Bobby Wills, who has died aged 86, founded the Farmington Trust, which supports the teaching of religious education, and was a well-known figure in west of England sporting circles. Wills started the Trust in 1965 to support, encourage and improve Christian education in schools, colleges and universities. By enabling teachers and ministers of religion to take a sabbatical at university, it has played an important part in the professional development of many, and has helped to transform religious education into one of the fastest growing disciplines in the school curriculum.
- "Bobby Wills - Telegraph". Retrieved 2007-11-19. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done - Modified the "Farmington Trust" sentence to address the 3rd of the recent points made by User:Zagalejo. Will address the other points shortly. Cirt (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I recast the sentence discussed above by User:Zagalejo, into the active voice, and found a better replacement for "pointed out". Cirt (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
- As to the point by Zagalejo about the "Themes" section, I think the progression is fine. The first paragraph is simply the various "new religious movements" spoofed in the episode, as analyzed in secondary sources. The second explains the psychology and tactics used by the Movementarians, and the third, you already said was fine. Cirt (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC).
- Well, maybe someone else will chime in. I still think they're kind of unfocused. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph has nothing to do with what follows. (And is that all The Simpsons and Philosophy says about the episode? If so, then we probably don't need to discuss that book at all.)
- The prose in the "Themes" section also needs more streamlining. Look at this sentence, for example: The A.V. Club analyzes the group in the episode in a piece called "Springfield joins a cult" and then describes The Simpsons portrayal of "shadowy sects" or "shadowy groups," and notes that the episode discussed Scientology, Heaven's Gate, the Unification Church, and organized religion in general, quoting Bart as saying, "Church, cult, cult, church. So we get bored someplace else every Sunday." That could probably be as many as three separate sentences. Zagalejo^^^ 02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The sentence preceding that one needs some work, too: Similar concepts utilized by the "Sect" in the episode and Scientology include similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard, references to a Sea Org uniform, a "Trillion year labor contract" instead of the Sea Org's Billion year contract, and the use of litigation in both groups. Are the "similarities in physical appearance between "The Leader" and L. Ron Hubbard" a "concept"? Are "references to a Sea Org uniform" a "concept"? Zagalejo^^^ 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will address these issues by Zagalejo, from above, and note them here, below, shortly. Cirt (talk) 04:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I split a sentence apart into 2 sentences, from a suggestion from Zagalejo (talk · contribs), above. Will address the 2nd point. Cirt (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - I addressed the second point from Zagalejo (talk · contribs), you're right, the word "concepts" did not work here, fixed up the syntax in that sentence a bit. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- OK, thanks. I think we could elaborate on this a little bit: Planet Simpson discusses The Simpsons' approach to deprogramming in the episode, and contrasts it with the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" used in the episode "Burns' Heir." We should try to summarize what the book says about deprogramming. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion. I will take a second look at the information in that book and revisit that sentence shortly. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Added some more info from Turner's Planet Simpson to explain the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" bit. Cirt (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- OK, thanks. I think we could elaborate on this a little bit: Planet Simpson discusses The Simpsons' approach to deprogramming in the episode, and contrasts it with the "Conformco Brain Deprogrammers" used in the episode "Burns' Heir." We should try to summarize what the book says about deprogramming. Zagalejo^^^ 07:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Inconsistent placement of final punctuation before/after closing quotation marks. MOS insists on the logical method: after (unless you need to make a point that this is part of the quotation). Please fix throughout. Tony (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, you are correct, should all be after, as per MOS, I usually use after, so not sure why this is the case, but I will fix it. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
- Done - Thanks for mentioning that. Cirt (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks, you are correct, should all be after, as per MOS, I usually use after, so not sure why this is the case, but I will fix it. Cirt (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC).
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment why is Image:20070601 Wells House (2).JPG located in demographics section instead of landmarks section where there is narrative describing this area of the city? Hmains 02:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply the second section in the demographics section says
| “ | African Americans resided in Bronzeville (around 35th and State Streets), in an area called "The Black Belt", later spreading across the South Side after World War II. The Black Belt, which gave a new meaning to the term ghetto, arose from discriminatory real estate practices and the threat of violence in nearby white neighborhoods. | ” |
Ida Wells was a very prominent African American. Also, I am trying to get as many images as possible on the right side since that is the preferred side for images. I view at 1680x1050 and this is the max that will fit without leaking into the notes section. Moving it up to the demographics makes it fit without squeezing the notes section while keeping it on the right. Note the image caption mentions the Bronzeville neighborhood.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To jump off my old comments, I still think a more thorough discussion of the Union Stock Yards is essential to this article. We could probably write a whole section about them. Zagalejo^^^ 19:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Needs a run-through by a copy-editor. In particular, there are patches of awkward wording. Here are a few exmples.
- "Considerable heterogeneity in race, income and other demographic measures can be found there."—That's a very awkward way of expressing it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Regions, referred to as sides, of the city are divided"—Relocate the nested phrase elsewhere in the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Is a medical institution an "offering"?
- I think in this sense it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- MOS breach in final period in caption that is not a sentence. There are several. Tony (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm still finding prose that is too similiar to text from the Encyclopedia of Chicago. Phrases like "procuring government and private grants" (last paragraph in "Demographics") are almost identical to those in the refs. There are synonyms for "procure". (That might not be the only example; try double-checking other sections.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Changed procured to obtained --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- So have you found someone to assist with a prose audit thoughout? Looks as though you just fixed the samples I provided above. Tony (talk) 14:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) It has improved. Tony (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- So far (this is a rebooted FAC), Zagalejo has been doing so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't done a proper copyedit just yet. I've simply browsed through the article a few times and identified some of the most glaring problems. Before we can really concentrate on the prose quality, there are some factual issues to deal with, like our original interpretations of some of the maps. (For example, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. We need a source that explicitly says that.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just gave it another once over myself.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 19:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't done a proper copyedit just yet. I've simply browsed through the article a few times and identified some of the most glaring problems. Before we can really concentrate on the prose quality, there are some factual issues to deal with, like our original interpretations of some of the maps. (For example, look at the last sentence of the first paragraph. We need a source that explicitly says that.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- So far (this is a rebooted FAC), Zagalejo has been doing so.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well written and comprehensive article.--Grahamec (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I think the article is great. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner, Tony :) I've been very busy lately. Cheers! ( arky ) 03:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's a really well written, well sourced article. It's been reviewed and copyedited by numerous editors and it's got sources, format etc. down pat. It's a great article all in all MPJ-DK 11:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Davnel03 16:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neutral The article has improved a great deal since it was nominated. I think some sections could still use a bit of a copyedit, but overall it has become a nice article and appears to be very comprehensive and understandable to non-wrestling fans. Karanacs (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for now. I think the article needs a good copyediting by someone who isn't a wrestling fan. I've tried to highlight phrases that weren't immediately clear and also point out a few places where the prose did not flow well, but I would recommend that you get the League of Copyeditors to take a look at it. There is a lot of overall wordiness (using three sentences when one would do, or five words instead of two) as well as some passages that read more like a magazine article than an encyclopedia article.In the first paragraph of the lead, every sentence begins with "Eaton" or "He". Can this be mixed up a bit?Do you have any information on his early life that does not relate to wrestling? Is there information on his parentage or whether he has siblings? Any information on why he wanted to become a wrestler?- I got nothing at all, not even unreliable sources :( MPJ-DK 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- It was worth asking...if the information isn't available, then it obviously can't be included. Karanacs
- I got nothing at all, not even unreliable sources :( MPJ-DK 11:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Need a source for the fact that he trained under Tojo Yamamoto (last sentence of paragraph under Wrestling career)I have no idea what this means "elevate Eaton's name up the card position in the promotion "- Done Clarified by linking to the definition of card. Nikki311 00:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of early career seems really choppy and doesn't flow well."first title win ever" is redundantIs their information on why Eaton stopped working with Poffo and decided to work with Gulas (and is that Gulas related to Nick Gulas)?- Done No information that I know of no, definitely nothing reliable or "Neutral". George Gulas is Nick Gulas' son (which I'm adding to the article, good point) MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
After the first time the article mentions someone, that person should only be referred to by their surname. That means that instead of "Bobby Eaton" he should be referred to only as "Eaton".Need a citation for the last sentence of first paragraph in section As a single competitor which refers to "world wide fame"- Done I'd a dope for not realizing that. The chapter in the book in general supports the "world wide fame" statement as they're known to wrestling fans world wide, even today. MPJ-DK 11:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"found himself working" does not seem like good prose -> could it be "Worked"?This sentence doesn't work "During his early days in the promotion, Eaton often faced the young Stan Lane in tag team competition, a person that would appear again later in Eaton's career"- "It was decided that Eaton and Sugar should split up"...who decided?
First paragraph of Midnight Express section doesn't flow wellHow did the series of matches against the Rock n Roll Express differ "from the way tag team wrestling was traditionally presented"?- Done The explanation of how it differed is a bit "wrestling fan" centric, so I re-wrote it to be about how well received the series of matches were, something which is more easily accessible to fans and non fans alike. MPJ-DK 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The last sentence of Midnight Express section is not sourced and doesn't appear to actually add much to the section. I'd remove it.The second paragraph of National spotlight section does not flow well. "left JCP from one day to the next" doesn't make sense, and "Enter a man from Eaton's past" seems a little too melodramatic for an encyclopedia article. I think you could distill this paragraph down to "In early 1987 Condrey left JCP for undisclosed reasons, and "Sweet" Stan Lane took his place as part of the Midnight Express." Then add the next paragraph in."after teaming for only a few months, the combination of Eaton and Lane" is a little wordyIt's usually not good to have a see also in the middle of a sentence. Either reword to be a part of the sentence or leave out the Brain Busters part)Express' should be Express's (see WP:MOS#Possessives)- The link seems to indicate that either is fine, as long as it's consistent throughout the article. GaryColemanFan 00:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
"it was the end of an era in tag team wrestling" seems a little unnecessary and POVish - can it go?" proving to everyone " is weasellyWhy was that his "biggest night as a singles wrestler"?- Done Changed it to "highest profile match as a singles wrestler" GaryColemanFan 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Need citations for second paragraph of fired and hired section - Benoit's first stint, "series of good matches", and the way they were used, as well as "never showed any signs of being considered as a permanent team" all need to be cited.- Done Changed the subjective "looked good" line and cited it. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Need a citation for the fact that he rejected the snob gimmick, because he could have left for other reasons.- Done I should have made it clear that he rejected it "in storyline terms", since otherwise it indicates that it was Eaton's own wish to end it and not a booked decission. Good catch MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Need a citation for last paragraph of Blue Bloods - "wreselted mainly ...to help make stars higher on the card than him look good"- Done I changed the wording so that it's not the subjective "look good" phrase to mainly indicate that he lost to wrestlers who the promotion were pushing. MPJ-DK 15:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Need citation for first paragraph of after WCW section -> "select independent wrestling cards"- Done the OVW profile page provides an overview of the "Midnight Express Retirement tour" dates and as such works as a reference. MPJ-DK 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- The personal section does not flow well between paragraphs
Do you have page numbers for the book citations? It is best to include page numbers so that it is easier for people to verify the information.- I do have the page numbers, well I will once I dig the book out of whatever box I stuck it in. Is a page range okay since most of the information is from one chapter? MPJ-DK 11:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI added the page range and the chapter I found stuff in and made specific citations if I got information from other chapters. MPJ-DK 15:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Karanacs 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I believe that a reference may have been improperly formatted, as this appears in the main body of the article;"</ref name=tagbook>". Other than this minor error it looks really well written --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 14:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yup I messed that up, but I fixed it again MPJ-DK 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- In whichc case, I Support --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yup I messed that up, but I fixed it again MPJ-DK 14:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I believe that this article meets the criteria for Featured Articles. It give a comprehensive description of Eaton's career (and personal life, where information is available) in a neutral and well-written article. It is well-sourced, and I can't find any problems with MOS guidelines. GaryColemanFan 04:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose - the subject matter is trivial and badly written eg ...Eaton is known as a generous and genuinely nice man. Who says? Even if he doesn't have any character traits that are less than exemplary does this sort of "fact" belong in a encyc? Albatross2147 05:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - If you had continued reading, that statement is sourced by two books in the next two sentences. Is the subject matter as a whole trivial and demeaning? Do you have any constructive criticism to improve the "bad" writing? Your comments (including the ones on Talk:Montreal Screwjob, another wrestling-related Featured Article that you have commented as being badly written and trivial) would be better if they including suggestions for improving the articles, not just putting them down. Nikki311 05:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "triviality" of this article is because it's about "Pro wrestling"? Not an objection I can take seriously, sorry. And "badly written" is apparently your definition of "supported by citations"? Your objection is not about the actual language, format or anything else - you object to the subject, not the content. How can I take that seriously? MPJ-DK 13:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Albatross2147, it's pretty obvious you hate professional wrestling. Please don't attempt to disrupt FAC's by making a point. Davnel03 17:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You have already demonstrated your bias against wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. I hate to break your heart, but this is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Unless you can definitively demonstrate that this is a poorly written article, then your vote is irrelevant. The Hybrid T/C 19:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - LAX 14:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well done article. FamicomJL 16:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Good article (And I've had a word with Albatross and Excalibur....) Vampire Warrior 17:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well written, well sourced. Bmg916Speak 20:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - despite the threats left on my talk page by the charming Vampire Warrior I want to point out in the interest of fairness and balance that the article is not comprehensive in that it does not seem to mention that the subject has not been tainted by any suggestion of steriod use unlike his tag team chums. Albatross2147 00:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply -
I have not looked over your talk page, but I will go on the record as saying thatI do not condone threats in any form against any user, and any users who practice such things should be ashamed of themselves for potentially damaging the credibility of the other members in their project. Anyway, it seems pointless to point out things that haven't happened. I could list some examples, but I can't figure out how to word them in a way that won't sound sarcastic. I will say that it isn't notable that he hasn't been accused of steroid use, since the number of wrestlers that haven't vastly outnumber those that have been accused of such things. The Hybrid T/C 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) - That he's not been "tainted" is original research, find a source that specifically says "Bobby Eaton has not been linked to steroids", otherwise it can't be added. And weren't you complaining about trivia? Since that's what it is. I'm failing to see the "fairness & balance" in that, we can throw in that he's never been accused of molesting children nor has he in any way been linked to Nazi war crimes. MPJ-DK 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to say cross dresser, or transsexual, but that seemed like a bad idea :P, so I didn't. The Hybrid T/C 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- LOL I've never let the fact that something was a bad idea stop me ;) MPJ-DK 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was going to say cross dresser, or transsexual, but that seemed like a bad idea :P, so I didn't. The Hybrid T/C 07:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply -
- Oppose - because the subject matter is really boring and I nearly fell asleep following the obscure twists and turns of this man's stage managed and completely mediocre career as a showman. If failure is the same as notability, then this career scores 10/10. Excalibur 02:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm just going to paraphrase what The Hybrid said above in response to opposes based on the subject matter itself,
Opposes based on subject matter are entirely irrelevant, inherently biased, and by definition made in bad faith. You are clearly showing your bias against professional wrestling, and your feeling that pro wrestling articles should not be featured. This is a neutral encyclopedia; all articles are given an equal chance. Becoming featured is not about what the article is about; it is about how well it is written. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, and to show your inherent bias toward a particular subject matter. The subject matter may not be boring at all to others. Thank you. Bmg916Speak 03:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you Bmg. Indeed, the subject of the article is entirely irrelevant, unless it is deletion material, which it is not. This is to judge how well it is written, and making the argument that this article doesn't deserve to be featured because it is about a wrestler is like saying someone doesn't deserve to be paid because they are black. I grow weary of these subjectist arguments. Perhaps we should set up a form of Featured Article Affirmative Action to make sure these arguments never rear their discriminatory heads ever again. The Hybrid T/C 04:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support It seems to follow the guidelines and it is well written. --Crazy4metallica 01:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose I as many will agree think he was a good wrestler, I however think he's not noteworthy enough for a featured artilce. If my dad who's watched wrestling for something like 30-40 years can't remember him why would someone from todays genderation no who he was their too young, unless they started watching it when they were just little. --Crash Underride 17:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does it really matter that your dad doesn't remember him? Is that the grounds for notability? Because I'd take a wild guess and say that there are several FA's that shouldn't have become FA's just because someone hasn't "heard" of them. I for one, have never heard of Sophie Blanchard, Honoré de Balzac, or Karnataka, and yet all three of those articles are FA's that in this month have appeared on the main page. Does that make them any less worthy of being FA's? The answer is a resounding, catergorically "NO". I've never heard of this guy either, and neither has my dad, who was watching wrestling since before Hogan rose to prominence, and yet that doesn't mean this article is not worthy of FA. Please, to all people that do not like pro wrestling: DO NOT RESPOND. Your bias, quite honestly, reminds me of the problem the United Nations faced during the Cold War. It was very hard for them to get anything done because the US and the Soviet Union would keep vetoing each other because they were biased against each other. That's what I see here. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, my vote is Support -- the article is well-written, well-sourced, and easy to read. Anakinjmt (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Please don't forget to see the previous FAC. Many of the comments there were addressed, and no opposes were outstanding. It's a comprehensive, well written article and I think deserves a shot at FA. Comments will be appreciated. Thankyou! SGGH speak! 08:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
....Anyone? SGGH speak! 14:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment
Resolved stuff from Buc
- "Trescothick was outshone by Michael Vaughan" I think "Michael Vaughan outshined Trescothick" would be better. Done
- "Marcus Trescothick's Test match career performance graph." Could be better worded Done
- "included eight fifties and two centuries" link fifties and centuries. Done there doesn't seem to be an article for half centuries that I can find, I have linked centuries though
- "NatWest Final" why the capital F? Done fixed
- "was second only to that of John Crawley" what? In the whole world? Done in england, I have better explained it
- "His Under-19 aggregate" what is an aggregate? Done number of runs scored over the year, I have explained it
- "Trescothick impressed Glamorgan coach Duncan Fletcher" ditto Done
- "who was playing in his 100th Test." nothing to do with Trescothick Done I agree
- "there was "poise and durability...just as there had been enterprise and verve to his impressive start in the One-day arena." who said this? Done attributed
- "sole" I think "first and, as of 2007, only" would be better. Done
- "he was often criticised for a lack of foot movement" needs ref [16] refs that
- "2004 and 2005, the Ashes" sounds like there was an Ashes series in 2004. Also lose "the". Done
- "average was over twenty" 20 Done
- "Trescothick said "I wouldn't say I've put it to rest, but I've made a big step forward to putting it to rest. It's a mental battle for me, something I have to deal with and work hard to try to understand what is different." no quotation marks and why the indent? I happens again two paragraphs later. Done both were a little short and snippty for blockquotes, rather than being seperated chunks of text
- "Young Australia" was that really what they were called?
- "This rich vein of form" WW
- "amassing an impressive 288 runs" here we've got both. Also impressive is POV
- "received support from...the late Bob Woolmer." how can you gain support from someone whose dead? Because he wasn't dead when he said it? That seems obvious to me...
- In that case "the late" is redundent. Buc 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Done
- In that case "the late" is redundent. Buc 18:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Someone reading this article might not know what ODI stands for. Done It is explained in the lead paragraph
- Could do with explaining it again it each section. Buc 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- "century-maker Adam Gilchrist" I think "Adam Gilchrist who has made a century" would be better I personally think the latter sounds more clumsy but will see what MdCollins says
- Only use one of "fifty" and "half century".
- I don't see why this matters...–MDCollins (talk)
- Consistency is important. Buc 10:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see why this matters...–MDCollins (talk)
- Having checked with word finder now, I can only find one instance where fifty is used, half-century being used in all others, and that fifty is "only once that season did he reach fifty" and I have changed that. SGGH speak! 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- "his demons from the previous Ashes" WW Done reworded
- "Trescothick's uncertainty over his place in the England squad has drawn varied criticism." needs ref.
- "Though it was not an easy debut for Trescothick" why wasn't it easy?
- "Several low scores" what is a low score?
- "Several low scores" what is a low score?
- "Domestically, 1995 was not as successful" how was it not as successful?
- Perhaps 'statistically...': Average only 19 compared to 49. 1 century/1 half compared with 1 century/8 half-centuries. Does this need to be mentioned/footnoted? –MDCollins (talk)
- I would say mention it. SGGH speak! 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Have added the batting-by-season reference. –MDCollins (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps 'statistically...': Average only 19 compared to 49. 1 century/1 half compared with 1 century/8 half-centuries. Does this need to be mentioned/footnoted? –MDCollins (talk)
- "Trescothick's Test match debut came later that summer in the third Test against the West Indies at Old Trafford, as a result of his good form in the NatWest series." switch this round so the NatWest series bit comes first. Also this is a bit of a run-on sentence. Done
- I thought that before, but it was 6 of one, half-dozen... Maybe. Is it critical? –MDCollins (talk)
- It would be the way I would do it because it's a less notable topic. Buc 10:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I thought that before, but it was 6 of one, half-dozen... Maybe. Is it critical? –MDCollins (talk)
- There seems to be a stange mixture throughout of say thing like "Impressive" or "poor" and just giving the raw stats. For exsample:
- I think if you're going to say "century" and "half century" you should also give the exact score. Especially since it sometimes gives the exact score but doesn't mention that it's century or half century. When the specific number is given it doesn't need to also be said to be over 50 or 100, its obvious... but I see what you mean re: the other point. Will see what MDCollins says
- I'm not sure of the problem. It isn't always necessary to put half-century (57) or 103. Too many numbers make it more difficult reading whereas a century fits into the prose easier. –MDCollins (talk)
- I would say use both like say: "(half) century (xx)" Buc 10:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the problem. It isn't always necessary to put half-century (57) or 103. Too many numbers make it more difficult reading whereas a century fits into the prose easier. –MDCollins (talk)
- Might I suggest giving the exact score for large centuries? Because 145 is much more significant than 101, so we could have 145-run century or something. However an 86-run half century doesn't really make sense because you are just saying "an 87 run fifty. Either leave it as half century or have the actual score, not both? SGGH speak! 11:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- I too think that doing that every time would be excessive. In any case, the words "half-century"/"century" would be redundant, meaning somebody would come along later and say remove them and leave the numbers. This would break up the prose/article too much, and are there not enough numbers and figures anyway, without adding to it? Just saying half-century/century is common practice in news articles/match right-ups in the national press without needing the score in brackets as well. I think there is a good mix and variation here, and in any case the important (large scores) are given as exact figures. The difference between, for example a 57-run half-century, and a 62 run innings isn't enough to warrant mention other than both being 'half-centuries'. No? –MDCollins (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- "his form in the West Indies was mixed" then later in the paragraph "267 runs including 130 in the 5th ODI and 82 from 57 balls" I think that it was mixed because it contained very poor and very good performances, those being the good ones
- Career records and statistics section seems a bit excessive and a lot of it doesn't appear to be referenced. All the stats are ref'd that I can see, either in the coloumn headers or otherwise by the stats. The use of statistics is in keeping with other FA cricketer articles
- One-day International Records, Man of the match awards and Man of the Series awards, don't appear to have a ref. The links under "record" one box right of each man of the match occurrence are refs to the scorecard on which the man of the match is recorded, as with Paul Collingwood SGGH speak! 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- They appear to be External links. Buc 10:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- One-day International Records, Man of the match awards and Man of the Series awards, don't appear to have a ref. The links under "record" one box right of each man of the match occurrence are refs to the scorecard on which the man of the match is recorded, as with Paul Collingwood SGGH speak! 19:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Buc 12:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments Buc, they are really useful! I have addressed those that I can. Hopefully MdCollins will come along and take care of the rest. Cheers SGGH speak! 14:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- (I'll have a look later! –MDCollins (talk) 20:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC))
Thanks Buc, there are a couple I've commented on which are still outstanding, but most have been addressed if you are happy. Please comment further about the rest. –MDCollins (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Problem with ref #7. Buc (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have fixed this. SGGH speak! 22:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is some stuff about his style of play here and there, but I think there needs to be a section about it. Buc (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Article says, "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English opener on debut". WG Grace, Plum Warner, SC Griffith and Colin Milton all scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman. See:[33] Phanto282 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Were they openers though? SGGH speak! 08:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Ah, which part of "scored a century on debut for England as an opening batsman" didn't you understand? Phanto282 10:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, it seems I am blind! I went to the source after I read the names then got distracted. :) SGGH speak! 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- This source, a news article, is where we got that information from. I suspect we will have to remove that information now. Will wait for MdCollins to see this. Thanks Phanto. SGGH speak! 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, a very interesting spot there Phanto. I wonder if the quotation should read "Trescothick fell on 66, nine runs short of the highest score by an English [left-handed] opener on debut"? No, Moxon was right-handed. Maybe it was a time thing, or the highest score for an England opener on debut since 1986. Oh well, it seems a bit dubious. Feel free to remove it. –MDCollins (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- This source, a news article, is where we got that information from. I suspect we will have to remove that information now. Will wait for MdCollins to see this. Thanks Phanto. SGGH speak! 11:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, it seems I am blind! I went to the source after I read the names then got distracted. :) SGGH speak! 11:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Have done so SGGH speak! 14:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment Under “Early domestic career”
- Article has Trescothick promoted to Somerset opener in 1995; this happened in 1994
- Removed. It's unnecessary anyway,
- Eng U/19 v RSA 1995 was played in Eng, not SA
- He also played for Eng U/19 v WI in 1993, in Sri Lanka 1994, & v India in 1994
- Denis Compton award is given to the most promising player at each county club, not to the most promising young county player
- Duncan Fletcher might have been impressed with his innings v Glamorgan, but surely it is the panel of selectors who select him for England?
- But Fletcher has his influences, and in this case I think it is well documented that the knock against Glamorgan secured his call up–MDCollins (talk)
Other “Trescothick did not score highly in the tournament, and England were knocked out at the quarter-final stage against South Africa. Despite these disappointing performances, Trescothick was named the PCA Player of the Year for his performances throughout 2000” The PCA award is for county performances, not international performances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phanto282 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Support The improvement in this article has been excellent. Well done to the editors for their persistence. Phanto282 (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. As good as the other cricket biography featured articlse. -- !! ?? 14:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support--comprehensive and well written. Good work.--Eva bd 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Weak Oppose Comments-beginning to look through...there are some real flow issues with the prose, and some odd words - a little vernacular in places which I am trying to fix or highlight- cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
::erm though redlinks are not a deal-breaker, having two in the lead is a little disconcerting***Gone. There were more created by User:!! that he failed to correct, but I've done them now.–MDCollins (talk)
::I must say I am not fond of having "stress-related illness" written as such in the lead. To me it carries a connotation of disbelief in what is quoted and hence (maybe unintentionally) veers away from NPOV. I'd substitute with something like - what he reported as as stress-related illness or something similar.
- Ok, on second thoughts I concede it is/was a difficult topic to do anything other than comment as such, yet is important enough to go in lead but tricky to do other than what's been done.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- displaying a calm temperament.. - eeww. I'd change it but I can't think of an alternative at the moment.
- Just sounds odd - temperament means characterological profile, for a lifetime not an innings, maybe I'd use composure or composed or something similar.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- when seemingly well set - ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- removed seemingly. "well set" is now in quotation marks, as it is in the source.
- opportunity to to shine -too colloquial -maybe "excel" is better but have a think on't.
- changed.
- highly satisfactory tournament - I normally like understatement but this sounds odd...
OK, I have tweaked or suggested above what needs doing. Will check in later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The redlinks were my fault; now fixed. As for the rest, the more people that read and copyedit, the better :) -- !! ?? 22:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Casliber. I've addressed your points, and several other minor issues if you'd care to take another look. –MDCollins (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Much improved; a few things—
- 40 then 16.00 – wouldn't you give consistent numbers of decimal places? Occurs elsewhere too.
- That particular example is "over 40.... then 16.00" so there its unnecessary to say "over 40.00", SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've gone and put exact (2 decimal place) averages in instead of the rough "over 40" etc. I think I've got them all. –MDCollins (talk)
- May-June: see MOS on en dashes.
- I think I have put an en-dash there now. Not sure. SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is fine! –MDCollins (talk)
- "Half-centuries"—perhaps no hyphen. Tony (talk) 12:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's perhaps not always a good idea to point to other FAs, but Paul Collingwood and Adam Gilchrist (many times in the latter) put the hyphen in half-century. Based on this I would be inclined to keep. SGGH speak! 20:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Cricinfo tends to use the hyphenated form, and both seem relatively prelevant. I think this may be a personal preference, so unnecessary to change. Unless, of course, you can find a source to suggest that it is grammatically incorrect.–MDCollins (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- 40 then 16.00 – wouldn't you give consistent numbers of decimal places? Occurs elsewhere too.
- Support Seems quite well done. It mentions nothing regarding Flectchers comments in his autobiography, might be worth a look? Twenty Years 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Self nomination: After barely failing the previous nomination, this article has undergone a very thorough copyedit. It meets all the FA criteria, abides by the MOS, and is very well cited. There was an issue in the last nomination about reffering to Mrs. Reagan as "Nancy"; the consensus decided to ignore that MOS guideline per WP:IAR as to eliminate any possible confusion between she and her husband, and to avoid the poor writing style typing out "Ronald Reagan" whenever the article mentions his name. Overall, this GA is FA fit. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comment— As a secondary issue, I'm genuinely sorry to raise this but I see the what-to-call-her problem remains. In the article, she's variously called Nancy Davis, Davis, Nancy Reagan, Reagan and Nancy, sometimes in consecutive sentences. I followed the arguments closely on this during the last FAC and while I fully agree that calling her "Nancy" does seem too cosy, it has the overwhelming advantage of clarity. I'll raise this also on the appropriate MoS talk page as the guideline isn't entirely fit for purpose. --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Raised here, with a view to amending the guideline. In the meantime, I support the promotion of this article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've commented at your link, and thanks for the support. Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- For information, I've now drafted a proposal and also mentioned it in WP:Biography here All comments welcome.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've commented at your link, and thanks for the support. Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Raised here, with a view to amending the guideline. In the meantime, I support the promotion of this article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 12:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I don't think there's an easy way out of the name business but the warmth of the writing for mine makes for good prose in this sense without coming over too POV. I played with this article before and I feel it fulfils criteria. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentSupport: 'unofficial "protector"' needs a ref. The image crowding in First Lady section creates a void space in the prose.--Redtigerxyz 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I will work on that later tonight. Happyme22 (talk) 14:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)- Done - I have improved the images in the FL section, as well as added a cite. Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- ref needed for mention of name of "Joan Quigley" specifically as the astrologer who advised the First Lady and Donald reagen's frustation. Assuming that will be done, Supporting as rest of the article is great and worth FA. --Redtigerxyz 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, and I've fixed the cite problem. Happyme22 (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- ref needed for mention of name of "Joan Quigley" specifically as the astrologer who advised the First Lady and Donald reagen's frustation. Assuming that will be done, Supporting as rest of the article is great and worth FA. --Redtigerxyz 06:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support for a third and hopefully final time! All previous queries and problems raised in the last FACS with style, references, wording etc have been answered and responded to by Happyme22. Looking through the article again I see it is well referenced and meets FA criteria and am happy to endorse its FA status. Just one small comment - recommend that the image caption - The Reagan family, 1967 be expanded? Good work! LordHarris 17:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks LordHarris! I've slightly expanded the caption as well. Happyme22 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not exactly objective, since I contributed heavily to the first few sections of the article during the last FAC, and I don't pretend to have a full handle on what an FA biography should be, but I think this article meets a reasonable bar. Wasted Time R 04:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you have helped a lot, and I thank you Wasted Time R. Happyme22 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Oppose for now. Overall an exceptional article, but some points appear, in my cursory review, to be unsupported by citations:
- "Once she had approved, she contributed to his campaign by overseeing personnel, monitoring her husband's schedule, and occasionally providing press conferences";
- "The new china, White House renovations, expensive clothing, and her attendance at the royal wedding of Prince Charles and Princess Diana gave her an aura of being "out of touch" with the American people";
- Done - The new china and renovations are already cited, and I've just cited her attendance at the wedding. Happyme22 (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- "When Reagan was released from the hospital on April 12, she escorted him back to the White House"
- Although after looking I cannot find a source that directly states this, but it's implied by this photo with Nancy and daughter Patti escorting the president out of the hospital (see caption on this page). Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- "In 1985, Nancy expanded the campaign to an international level by inviting the First Ladies of various nations to the White House for a conference on drug abuse."
- "Critics of the "Just Say No" campaign and the American "War on Drugs" argued that the program was too costly and questioned its purpose";
- "and in a 1985 rock music video, "Stop the Madness";
- I can't find a reliable sources that states this; there are websites from google that say she was in this rock video, and you can see her in the video itself (where she's also reconized in the credits), but you cannot cite youtube and there's nothing more besides the video. Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- You can always cite the rock video itself. Nothing wrong with that. Just so long as her presence in the video is verifiable, which it sounds like it is. COGDEN 04:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can't find a reliable sources that states this; there are websites from google that say she was in this rock video, and you can see her in the video itself (where she's also reconized in the credits), but you cannot cite youtube and there's nothing more besides the video. Happyme22 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Upon leaving the White House, the couple returned to California, where they purchased a second home in the Bel Air section of Los Angeles, dividing their time between Bel Air and the Reagan Ranch in Santa Barbara, California. After leaving Washington, Nancy Reagan made numerous public appearances, many on behalf of her husband.";
- I've cited the Reagans buying their home (even though other people paid for it originally, Ronald Reagan paid it all off - see the cite), but it doesn't completely take care of the traveling so I'll look through her autobiography. And the one about her making appearances on behalf of the president is a well known fact, because Reagan was diagnosed with Alzheimer's and rarely made appearances. Happyme22 (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- "She continues to present the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award to a notable person who "embodies President Reagan's lifelong belief that one man or woman truly can make a difference.";
- "On May 3 of the same year, Reagan hosted and attended the first 2008 Republican Presidential Candidates Debate at the Reagan Presidential Library. While she did not participate in the discussions, she sat in the front row and listened as the men vying to become the nation's 44th president claimed to be a rightful successor to her husband, the 40th."
- Citations should either be added for these points, or it should be demonstrated that a citation isn't needed.
- Also a WP:MOS nitpick: Should use consistent logical quotations. COGDEN 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll get working on them right now. Thanks for the help, Happyme22 (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)- I've addressed all of your concerns. If you have any questions or further comments please feel free to post them; if not, would you consider supporting? Happyme22 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, I have done some MOS and ref cleanup work on the article in the past. It's ready for featured status now; many editors have been through it, and it has received a careful copyedit. Nice work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks Sandy! Happyme22 (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, per others. --RandomOrca2 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! Happyme22 (talk) 23:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
I've worked on this article for the past few weeks, adding all the relevant info I could find from five biographies. Two (Larson and Clinton) are heavily cited, because they are the only adult bios published since 1943. It has been thoroughly peer reviewed. Thank you in advance for participating in the process. – Scartol · Talk 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
CommentsSupport - I like the article, but think I should mention these issues first.
- If everyone new her as Harriet Tubman, then why is her birth name prominently featured in the infobox? Her birth name is already displayed well in the first sentence of the article. It doesn't look too hot formatting wise, either.
- I was under the impression that the style used here was standard, but after looking around I can't find other examples. So Done I've removed her birth name from the infobox. – Scartol · Talk 12:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I am, of course, in favor of removing the infobox altogether. :) Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the style used here was standard, but after looking around I can't find other examples. So
- Are there any more images or paintings of Tubman during the time she was helping the slaves? Looking at pictures of people who the article doesn't belong to seems a little un-encyclopedic; if no more images of Ms. Tubman can be found you may want to remove some of the ones of other people, focusing more attention on the article's subject.
- Actually, I think four pictures of her is a fair number. The other images are designed to give context and draw in readers who are interested in the different aspects of her life. – Scartol · Talk 12:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- The pictures seem well-chosen to me. Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Correct me if I'm wrong, but the book reference formatting is not completely correct (although Harry S. Truman's is similar, but you might want to visit Ronald Reagan)
- If I may respond to just this one point. Though this article uses a different style than Ronald Reagan it is internally consistent and both are valid styles. (I actually slightly prefer Harriet's style. It's more concise, but creates no ambiguity.) --JayHenry 07:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer HT's style as well, which has been used for quite a few FAs (speaking from experience). Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Overall, the article is very well cited and it was an intersting read. Happyme22 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)- Well that seems to take care of it. Great job! Happyme22 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I made my comments at peer review. They were all addressed. DrKiernan 08:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I visited this article less than a couple of weeks ago, and found myself despairing at the lack of content for such an important subject. Scartol's expansion of the article is remarkable. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. A very impressive article, as I said at the peer review. The industrious Scartol has done wonders and managed to avoid the pitfalls of articles based partly on oral history. I had never heard of Tubman until last week, and this article was the perfect introduction. -- qp10qp (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Wonderfully well-written and engaging article. I was really shocked to learn that there isn't more written on Tubman. I suppose I was misled by all of those juvenile biographies I read as a child - I assumed that would be mirrored by adult biographies. A few tweaks:
- When a powerful Fugitive Slave Law was passed in 1850, she helped guide fugitives further north into Canada, and helped newly-freed slaves find work. - "far-reaching" rather than "powerful", perhaps?
- She died in 1913, and became one of the most well-known individuals in American history. - I think that the statement about her iconicity in American history could be made a bit more precise than this.
- At the age of five, she was hired to a woman named "Miss Susan" as a nursemaid. - "hired out"?
- Tubman at first prepared to storm their house and make trouble, but then decided he wasn't worth the trouble. - repetition of "trouble"
- I would like to see expanded captions under the portraits per WP:CAPTIONS. I think it adds that little extra to the article. (I've been converted ever since Joseph Priestley.)
- "Jailbreak Out Of History, a re-biography of Harriet Tubman" A chapter of a work-in-progress - This link seems to be to a self-published book. That seems sketchy to me.
Another excellent article by Scartol! Awadewit | talk 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks so much, Awad. I've made all the repairs you've indicated, except for the captions – I'll expand them later. (In a way I think smaller captions may entice people to read more of the article: "Hmm. I wonder how she was involved with Frederick Douglass?" But I can see the value in expanding them too.) I wanted to remove the "Jailbreak" link, but I always hate removing stuff that people might have added in good faith. (That's why I had to rewrite a big chunk of the lead during the Peer Review process. I'm too nice!) Cheers. – Scartol · Talk 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Whereas I just slash and burn. :) Awadewit | talk 01:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the captions, although I'm having trouble dealing with the two conflicting directives:
- Captions should not be complete sentences
- Captions should be descriptive and evocative
- It was hard to do both at once, unless I wanted to use nothing but "[name], who worked with Tubman…" constructions. If you have ideas on how to make them better, be my guest. – Scartol · Talk 12:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I've expanded the captions, although I'm having trouble dealing with the two conflicting directives:
- As far as I am aware, captions can be full sentences. This is evidenced by the MOS rule that states that captions that are full sentences must end in a period and those that are not should not! (wherever that is). Anyway, I think the captions are much better. Perhaps the only one that could still be improved is the Hunter one. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Captions should not be complete sentences." I've never heard that directive on Wikipedia. Is that in the Captions manual of style? Ironically, I'm pretty sure that it used to recommend that all captions be complete sentences back in the old days. I tend to favor complete sentences and longer captions myself, although I believe both styles are acceptable. Kaldari (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- As far as I am aware, captions can be full sentences. This is evidenced by the MOS rule that states that captions that are full sentences must end in a period and those that are not should not! (wherever that is). Anyway, I think the captions are much better. Perhaps the only one that could still be improved is the Hunter one. Awadewit | talk 00:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, WP:CAPTIONS, which Awad cited earlier, seems ambiguous. I've only recently read that (silly me), basing my understanding of how they work on WP:MOS#Captions, which says: "Most captions are not complete sentences, but extended phrases, which should not finish with a period." Maybe we need to reconcile these? (Yeah, right. Proposing a change to MoS is like sticking one's finger in a Cuisinart.) – Scartol • Tok 01:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well referenced. But if it is a good article and has undergone a peer review, should not those two events be listed in an Article History template on the talk page? Currently, there is none, and the wikiprojects are still incorrectly rated as "B", instead of "GA". Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC).
- "GA" is only for those articles that have gone through the GA process. Awadewit | talk 08:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- I bypassed the GA process, since I figured my work with Balzac and Chinua Achebe had given me the footing to jump right to FAC. The article was peer reviewed, however – as noted above. – Scartol • Tok 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Certainly meets the FA criteria: well-written, well-referenced, and in compliance with the manual of style so far as I can tell. A strong article on a vital subject of U.S. history. VanTucky Talk 21:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
Another Chili Peppers album up for promotion. This one has probably had the most outside review before nomination. Passed as a GA one month ago and since then I've been ironing out a few kinks while Grim-Gym executed a thorough copyedit. Overall, I'm pretty confident in this one. Questions, comments and concerns will be dealt with immediately. NSR77 TC 18:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - As a contributor to the article, I know the article thoroughly and endorse it. I must add however, that I've mentioned to NSR that the sample of "Coffee Shop" needs to be removed and replaced with "Warped". The latter is mentioned directly in-prose and thus would better meet fair-use criteria. -- Grim (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- If anyone is willing to upload it, I'd be very grateful. NSR77 TC 19:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - had to iron out a couple of unusual grammar constructions but very good flow of prose. Only odd bit I didn't touch was One Hot Minute contains far darker, more suicidal and less sexual themes than previous records - more suicidal? Suicidal is a highly specific concept and I find it hard to believe there'd be so much around self-harm directly. The more general term nihilistic or just leaving as darker captures sombre/negative mood better if that is what is meant. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - I didn't know you were taking this to FAC yet. There's still stuff I wanted to add to the article; nothing so essential the article is lacking without it, but rather that adds some detail to the whole affair. In particular I have Navarro quoted as outright saying there were songs on the album he didn't like. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be really good to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going away in a week or so for a while, so it was now or never. NSR77 TC 15:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be really good to add. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - The article has a few prose issues:
- The 2nd sentence of the lead uses "successful" twice. Done
- It also integrated use of heavy metal guitar riffs. - isn't there a "the" missing? Done
- and received a far better response from critics. - change to "and received far more critical acclaim. Done
- Navarro was fired from the band due to creative differences in 1997. - the paragraph would flow better if there was a "Subsequently," at the beginning of this sentence. Done
- despite producing three successful hits change to despite producing three hit singles. Done
- Isn't "The band's previous album," in the 2nd para of the lead redundant since its been mentioned already? Done
- Stunned, the Chili Peppers had no plans as to who could replace Frusciante, hiring Arik Marshall to finish out the remaining dates after being forced to reschedule. - needs to be rewritten. Maybe "Stunned, the remaining Chili Peppers, who had no idea about a suitable replacement for Frusciante, hired Arik Marshall to play the remaining dates after being forced to reschedule." Done
- Several weeks prior he had a dental procedure change to "he had had a dental procedure" Done
- He returned to Hollywood in late January, - include "1995" there to remind the reader of the time frame. Done
- Because Kiedis had resumed heavy drug use and ... - Cannot start a sentence with "because". Done
- which he both sung and played bass on. to "which he also both sang and played bass on.". Done
- His writing style in Jane's Addiction were independent from other contributors, whereas the Red Hot Chili Peppers were far more of a collaborative group - "His writing in Jane's Addiction was independent from other contributors, whereas the Red Hot Chili Peppers was a far more collaborative group" Done
- Navarro himself noted the band's dynamic was more even than that of Jane's Addiction, which was often dominated by frontman Perry Farrell. - to "Navarro himself noted that the band's dynamic was more than that of Jane's Addiction, which was often dominated by frontman Perry Farrell." But can a band's dynamic be "more" than another's? Done
- as a way to break the monotony - to as a way of breaking the monotony Done
- since then it has gone 2x multi-platinum in the United States to and has since gone 2x multi-platinum in the United States Can "2x multi-platinum" be replaced by something like "double platinum"? Done
- Some however, praised the record. to "Some, however, praised the record." Done
- When the U.S. leg ended. Umm, leg may not be the best word to use there when you just talked about a broken foot :D. Done
- Months went by without any scheduled concerts. One Hot Minute was not selling as well as the band expected. - Rewwrite that into one sentence... Reads like 2 random disconnected sentences now. Done
- By April 1998, the band had not written any new material, so Kiedis and Flea decided it was time to fire their guitarist. to "By April 1998, the band had not written any new material; Kiedis and Flea decided it was time to fire their guitarist."
- necessary to call it quits is not encyclopedic. Done
- He made one last attempt to keep the band together, by asking Frusciante to rejoin. - remove "by". Done
- The 2nd sentence of the lead uses "successful" twice.
Phew! I think other than these issues, the article is excellent and tells an interesting story. Good job Tommy Stardust (talk) 11:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, I believe I've fixed everything. Some of this stuff I wasn't even aware was here as I've been pretty busy off-Wikipedia these days. Thanks a lot! NSR77 TC 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - What about note 7 and 8? Done Skizzik (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed! Didn't even see that! NSR77 TC 16:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support — Quality article. No problems with the writing or references as far as I can see. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 15:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC))
- Support - Very nice article. It's an album I don't enjoy as much as the other albums, because of the problems the members and the then-gone Frusciante were going through, but this is definitely great. Good job! xihix(talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I forgot I didn't support yet :) Tommy Stardust (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 03:02, 26 November 2007.
I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is a very well developed article now with a very large team of editors. There are plenty of citations, the article is balanced, it covers the full range of topics a city article would need, and it is stable. It is at the centre of the Greater Manchester WikiProject and is always up to date so anything found wrong with the article please post here and it will be sorted promptly. Thank you in advance for your comments! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I've peer reviewed this article and helped out with it a lot, I'm sure And-Rew will do a good job in fixing any issues. I have none. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I helped bring the article to GA standard a few months back, and it's really progressed since then. A hardworking team, which I am proud to be a member of takes this article seriously and there is no doubt in my mind that that team will assist in the articles development to FA. Rudget.talk 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Manchester is an amazing city and an article like this really helps in reflecting its stunning achievements and capabilities. I have every pride in And-Rew and the team helping to make this happen. After all, it’s not just a city; it’s a way of life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abfab27 (talk • contribs) 00:45, November 19, 2007 (UTC)
- Support - It has been fantastic to watch this article over the past few months develop and improve to the standard that it is today. There are some outstanding editors backed by an enthusiastic team who have helped this to happen who will ensure that this is, at all times, an article of very high quality.GRB1972 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - A very good and well sourced article which covers all aspects set out for settlements in the UK. Evildarkone - Bringing Darkness and Cold News (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I've been closely involved with this article, and would love nothing more than for it to pass this, but please don't be shy in finding flaws please(!); we at WikiProject Greater Manchester really want this to be the best of the best! Be brutal if need be! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I made some changes to the demography section. Also, why are there two weather charts covering pretty much the same thing? Mangostar (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Thank you for your input it is always valued. Your idea to use a graph for population history was great and a slightly nicer looking graph already existed so I replaced it and put the table back in as it is often regarded as very useful. I also expanded the section as it was quite weak for such a good quality article. Also with regards to the weather, if you take a look at London they use both styles and I think they compliment each other rather well. Thanks again! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was skimming past this nomination and noticed the comment "be brutal" so have had a look. I've read through it and can't find any real faults. The only one thing I would say is, do you need the full addresses of the consulates? Apart from that this is excellent stuff. Peanut4 (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I will bring this point up at the Greater Manchester WikiProject and get some input, personally I don't see why we should or shouldn't have them. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)- Done After a very short conversation it was decided they were in breach of WP:NOT#DIR so we're removed. Thanks for your comments! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Some minor issues:
- Left aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections. Done
except for the first image in early history, if it was aligned right it would cause major style issues. - Image captions should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. Done
- The millimetre measurements in the climate section need inch equivalents. Done
- Europe doesn't need linking. Roman doesn't need linking twice. London doesn't need linking three times. Done
- "ie 1979 onwards" - dots may be needed after the i and e Done
- "First World War" "World War II" - consistency probably needed. Done Epbr123 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Left aligned images shouldn't be placed at the start of subsections.
- Comment - I and User:Malleus Fatuarum have corrected all these points now. Thanks for you support! └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
Hi. Myself and several other editors have been working on this article, and I believe it fully meets the FA criteria. One issue that one might point out involves stability; the article is expected to win a few awards at GotY this year (or early next), but I don't really see this as a stability issue, as that addition of information will involve a few sentences of text, and the article is stable currently anyway. Thanks for your consideration. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Per WP:FAC instuctions, "An article should not be a featured article candidate and at the same time be nominated for peer review or as good article candidate," please close and archive the peer review to {{oldpeerreview}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oops. Sorry. Done. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - per me. — H2O — 09:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I copyedited it not too long ago, and it seems solid, and just as good as most FAs. Andonic Screw wikibreak enforcer! 10:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose A few things I noticed immediately.
- Citations are inconsistent. Not all of them list accessdates. Of those that do, some are in "Retrieved on November 2 2007." form, and others "Retrieved on 2007-08-20." form. A good number of the references don't have author names, but could.
- Well, I will try to get to it, but bear with me - I have 116 refs to check over. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- All Done, I believe. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. Many, many citations lack author and publisher information, and I still see a number of inconsistencies in the accessdates alone. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I will get to work on finding publisher information for over 100 references, so please be patient. You should also be aware that that kind of information is not always available. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- If publisher information is not available, then perhaps the source is not sufficiently reliable. How can we check the source's "reputation for fact-checking" or "editorial oversight" if we do not have the publisher information? How can we check as to whether the source is self-published if we do not have the publisher information? On the other count, take as long as you wish; I understand that other obligations can press the Wikipedian for her valuable editing time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I have to say that the almost unchallenged Half-life 2 does not cite any publishers. Is this detail really imperative to the referencing in this article? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- If publisher information is not available, then perhaps the source is not sufficiently reliable. How can we check the source's "reputation for fact-checking" or "editorial oversight" if we do not have the publisher information? How can we check as to whether the source is self-published if we do not have the publisher information? On the other count, take as long as you wish; I understand that other obligations can press the Wikipedian for her valuable editing time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fine. I will get to work on finding publisher information for over 100 references, so please be patient. You should also be aware that that kind of information is not always available. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. Many, many citations lack author and publisher information, and I still see a number of inconsistencies in the accessdates alone. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- All
- Well, I will try to get to it, but bear with me - I have 116 refs to check over. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- (unindent) The date forms are still inconsistent. I'm seeing half the citations in "Month Day Year" and half in "#Year#-#Month#-#Day#" Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- An unhealthy amount of data is cited to weak references: Why use an about.com reference, for example? Is the Yale Daily News a recognized authority in the field? Some of the work simply seems unclean: Why does reference 90 link to a blog's summary of a paper rather than to the original paper itself, linked within the very same article? I also feel like the article fails to take full advantage of the source material out there. The article fails, for example, to make use of the developer interviews on Bioshock's collectors' set: a lot of the material they contain is simply omitted, and it could make for a much better development section. The EGM quote in "Influences" doesn't have a citation, and it's written in italics, where other quotations aren't. Not that quotations are a bad thing, but I think that more quotations in the development section could be paraphrased and balanced by more prose description.
- Well, the article is sourced to 116 references. I'd say it is fairly well-sourced, when you look at other video gae FAs, they use many ".com" sources, so I'd say that it is fine. If you can help us take advantage of the vaguely described "sources out there", then it would be appreciated. Fixed the quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article cites a web forum's self-reportage for a sentence on "current user efforts to create a Pixel shader 2.0-compatible version of the software"; it cites a blog called Gaming Bob; it cites a Yale student newsletter. The quality of an article's sourcing isn't dependent on any raw number; good sourcing requires user discretion, assessment, and the full-scale exploitation of the best sources. 116 isn't an impressive number for the largest PC and Xbox game of the year: GameSpot alone has 125 pieces on the game. Such a figure could probably be multiplied tenfold to get an accurate gauge on the number of sources available everywhere, without resorting to the citation of minor sources. For video games, I expect fuller sourcing than I do for less ephemeral topics. Because the sources for video games are at once both numerous and superficial, and because there are no real authorities in the field, an article that must "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" will need to use a larger number of sources to meet that requirement than a comparable article in another field. I believe this article does not currently meet Featured Article standards in this regard. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Irrelevent to the subject matter, 116 sources is an impressive number, and it is not as if we have blindly selected those sources; we have inherently applied our discretion. We have scourged a large number of areas for these citations, which I feel is a good thing, for we have achieved a broader understanding of the content, and have seen different views on the content, instead of searching in the same places. As you say, there are no real authorities in the video gaming world, so why are you placing more emphasis on the more published and well-known websites? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- The article cites a web forum's self-reportage for a sentence on "current user efforts to create a Pixel shader 2.0-compatible version of the software"; it cites a blog called Gaming Bob; it cites a Yale student newsletter. The quality of an article's sourcing isn't dependent on any raw number; good sourcing requires user discretion, assessment, and the full-scale exploitation of the best sources. 116 isn't an impressive number for the largest PC and Xbox game of the year: GameSpot alone has 125 pieces on the game. Such a figure could probably be multiplied tenfold to get an accurate gauge on the number of sources available everywhere, without resorting to the citation of minor sources. For video games, I expect fuller sourcing than I do for less ephemeral topics. Because the sources for video games are at once both numerous and superficial, and because there are no real authorities in the field, an article that must "accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge" will need to use a larger number of sources to meet that requirement than a comparable article in another field. I believe this article does not currently meet Featured Article standards in this regard. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the article is sourced to 116 references. I'd say it is fairly well-sourced, when you look at other video gae FAs, they use many ".com" sources, so I'd say that it is fine. If you can help us take advantage of the vaguely described "sources out there", then it would be appreciated. Fixed the quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Odd formatting: In the reviews section, there is a capitalized sentence following a colon, an ellipsis used contrary to MOS guidelines, and a quotation followed by text that is finished with a period, rather than a comma. There is a period following reference 15 and the already full-stopped quoted sentence that it follows: ."[15]. There isn't much italicizing of journal, magazine and newspaper titles, as required by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles). Why is the "Technical" in "Criticism and Technical issues" capitalized? A good cleanup seems in order.
- All Done. Left the ellipsis as it was part of a quote. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. The journal, magazine and newspaper titles are not yet italicized. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now I think it is all done. I have done a clean sweap of the reviews/awards section, where they are all likely to be in. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I caught some more: Atlas Shrugged and The Orange Box. Oh, and Tribes: Vengeance also needs italicizing. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- One more: EGM. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now I think it is all done. I have done a clean sweap of the reviews/awards section, where they are all likely to be in. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. The journal, magazine and newspaper titles are not yet italicized. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- All
- Some awkward phraseology: 'In the realm of current events, Levine has also mentioned an interest in "stem cell research and the moral issues that go around."'; "According to the developers, BioShock is a spiritual successor to the System Shock games, and was developed by former developers of that series."
"Chat" in the sense of "speaking with" is insufficiently formal. Perhaps "spoke"?
- Citations are inconsistent. Not all of them list accessdates. Of those that do, some are in "Retrieved on November 2 2007." form, and others "Retrieved on 2007-08-20." form. A good number of the references don't have author names, but could.
These are just some general flaws. I believe the article needs a good copy-edit by a user unfamiliar with the article. I'm also not comfortable stating that this article fulfills 1 (b) and 1 (c). The sources don't seem to have been mined in any consistent or comprehensive way. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 10:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- These are minor flaws. I mean, really - look at the last one. You could have fixed that yourself. I don't agree that a good cleanup is in order; I doubt that there is any article here on Wikipedia which has utterly immaculate formatting. But I will try and see if I can get it to the standard which you are asking. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I'm seeing them all over. I used them as illustrative of larger-scale problems: I don't think this article meets FA standards for engaging, professional prose, for MOS compliance, for sourcing, for full and accurate citation, and for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot work with such a vague comment. Make specifications and contructive criticism, rather than pure criticism not backed up by examples that I can work on improving. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- My examples are above; I do not expect you to work on my summation of the criticisms with the article. Rather, when you have addressed all particular criticisms, the general criticism will disappear, just as when you cut down every single tree, the forest will disappear. I will attempt to be precise in the future. My apologies for raising your ire with vague commentary and pure criticism. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am not angry at all. Just feel a little swamped, by what is, I think we can agree, mostly minor issues. But, as you say, eventually the forest will fall. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your persistent hard work, AnonymousD! Minor fixes add up to a prettier, cleaner, more accessible and more useful article.Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also, thanks to Masem for his hard work behind the scenes. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, I am not angry at all. Just feel a little swamped, by what is, I think we can agree, mostly minor issues. But, as you say, eventually the forest will fall. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some more precise commentary:
- My examples are above; I do not expect you to work on my summation of the criticisms with the article. Rather, when you have addressed all particular criticisms, the general criticism will disappear, just as when you cut down every single tree, the forest will disappear. I will attempt to be precise in the future. My apologies for raising your ire with vague commentary and pure criticism. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot work with such a vague comment. Make specifications and contructive criticism, rather than pure criticism not backed up by examples that I can work on improving. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 22:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
"BioShock takes place during 1960, in Rapture, a fictional underwater dystopian city[28] secretly built in 1946 on the mid-Atlantic seabed, entirely self-sufficient and powered by submarine volcanoes." has too many clauses. Splice it down.- I have. It now reads much more fluidly. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's a dash being used in place of a spaced ndash/unspaced mdash.
- Too many quotes used in the reception section.
- I'm not sure this is really a problem. I thought it would be a good thing, enforcing the accuracy of the section by making quotes and giving context. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Grand Theft Auto isn't italicized.- Done
"Versions and merchandise" falls prey to proseline. Try to vary your sentence-commencing techniques.- Please give an example of this so I can see it elsewhere and eliminate the issue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Each paragraph begins with "On Month Day Year,..."
- Reworded
- Each paragraph begins with "On Month Day Year,..."
- Please give an example of this so I can see it elsewhere and eliminate the issue. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There should be no external links in the text.- I have converted the one (?) instance of this into a cite. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's another...Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I got it. It was "Got-Next" in the reviews section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's been relinked. -_- Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- I got it. It was "Got-Next" in the reviews section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Where? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- There's another...Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have converted the one (?) instance of this into a cite. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
2004-2005 needs an ndash.- Done
Does "BioShock: Breaking the Mold" need both italics and quotation marks?- no, removed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure Kristan Reed should speak for "reviewers" "overall". Perhaps you could make clear that that final series of comments comes from one reviewer working for one publication alone?- Reworded. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wired should link to Wired (magazine), right? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)- Yep. Fixed. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does not talk about "morality-based" storyline mentioned in lead. In line with that, the article might perhaps discuss the prominent moral/dramatic issues surrounding the harvesting of Little Sisters. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Integrated into gameplay section. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Needs citations. OR-ish as is. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Some reception, beyond the quoted NYT thumbs-up, might be nice. Perhaps link the NYT comment to the harvesting? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Integrated into gameplay section. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- A limited selection of sources on the issue, in addition to the NYT article cited. Could be expanded: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]
- This talks a goodly amount about the Objectivism/Ayn Rand connection. Might help there. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You have two pairs of Game Rankings citations. I understand there being a pair, what with the Xbox and PC launches, but there's no need for two pairs. The two pairs are not consistently formatted anyways. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- Not sure waht you mean; the 360 ref has is used twice, as is the PC. so what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then that means it's Done! When I was looking at it, the two locations were cited to different references. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- Then that means it's
- Not sure waht you mean; the 360 ref has is used twice, as is the PC. so what? -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There's a Metacritic citation called "Critical Acclaim". That's not what MetaCritic called their page, and the citation is redundant anyways; there's already another pair of Metacritic citations. Refmerge! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 16:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)- Why does the "Story" begin with "The character of Jack"? It sounds a bit awkward. What's wrong with "Jack"? In-universe issues? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- In any case, if "immaculate formatting" means compliance with all Style Guidelines, then this article, as per the Featured Article criteria, needs immaculate formatting to pass FAC. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I'm seeing them all over. I used them as illustrative of larger-scale problems: I don't think this article meets FA standards for engaging, professional prose, for MOS compliance, for sourcing, for full and accurate citation, and for a comprehensive treatment of the topic. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, although some references in the Story section for the text between "Ryan further informs..." and "...Here the game ends" would possibly be beneficial. Daniel 09:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Weak support: per WP:LEAD, I'm sure the lead can be a little more comprehensive. Manderiko 15:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support, very well referenced and written. This is something to be proud of, regardless of the outcome. Great work ~ Sebi 09:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The fair use images should be reduced in size to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content policy. The rule of thumb is that non-free images should be no larger than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. -- Chris B • talk 15:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually now Done (the actual images had to be rescaled, and since I had uploaded them all, I've gone and fixed them all to be no larger than 300px in one dimension. --MASEM 06:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually now
- Support - great job, the article is very detailed - I only miss sales data, only "shipped units" are reported. And the article will certainly fulfill the "Stability" criteria, since the only things yet to come about the game are awards and sales. igordebraga ≠ 17:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for FA because it has been doing well since long. Vikrant Phadkay 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- A lot of information here. Well written. Well referenced. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
- Comment
Oppose Comment: multiple unsourced paragraphs, particularly in Music video, but also elsewhere, and including some uncited quotations. At least one of those quotes also needs logical quotation, per MOS. In the same section, a couple of stubby paragraphs, and repetition of the android Manson. Various punctuation problems: a quote without a closing ", one ending ."[12]". Years on their own linked (well, at least one, anyway), and a strange hyphen hanging around after bridge. That's what I spotted on a very quick glance through it, so there may be more along these lines. Carre 14:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have answered these issues below, so why oppose now? Vikrant Phadkay 15:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now changed comment to oppose. Carre 21:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done It has all been corrected. Some of it was just trivia, probably kept after removing its section. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- These are just examples, following another very quick scan through:
- really quickly".[14] – logical quotes
- Bond theme. [32] – citation placement
- turned out."?"[30] – punctuation
- version - 15 or 20 – dashes
- "predictable "Goldfinger" permutation – punctuation
- There remains at least one quote without citation
- Done The website in that sentence was not mentioned. Thats out. Vikrant Phadkay 16:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- These are "just" MOS things, for the most part, but again, this is only from a quick scan. In other words, it looks like it needs a copy edit. Carre 08:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done So MOS is now fine. I dont see problems about the other criteria. Vikrant Phadkay 16:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [Edit - I take it this was an answer to me, not Avala, so I took the liberty of moving it here... if that's a problem, just move it back. Carre]
- I just went through and fixed a few more. Can't see anything else personally, so I've gone back to comment now. That doesn't mean there aren't any more problems, just that I couldn't see them. Carre 16:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What is bothering you? Everything is done, I suppose.Vikrant Phadkay 16:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- These are just examples, following another very quick scan through:
- Support - well written. --Avala 01:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support since I improved the article for/during the GA nomination, I was already thinking about an FA nom. But we'll need to fix the broken refs. igordebraga ≠ 15:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I have replaced IMDb. Vikrant Phadkay 17:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Again: All templates are now being used.Vikrant Phadkay 16:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - nicely done. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would like to mention, as part of the WikiProject James Bond, that User:Vikrant Phadkay, who a recent contributor to this article, is currently on a short Wikibreak and will return soon and will answer queries then. SpecialWindler talk (currently in control) 08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have returned. Vikrant Phadkay 16:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comments This article is good. I was expecting a stubby article when I saw this in the list, however it is very comprehensive and well written. There are a few things needing cleanup/attention.
- "It is the third theme of the series sung by a Scotswoman (Shirley Manson) after..." -- This is interesting Bond trivia. However I would question whether it is worthy of mention in this article. And it is most certainly not notable for the lead. Also violates the point that the lead should not contain info. not discussed later.
- Done Removed, as I couldn't find any place to fit igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I was always sure the lyrics were "there's no point in living if you cant feel alive", however I listened to the song again and it's undoubtedly "there's no point in living if you cant feel a life" as the article states. However the actors make reference to this line several times and it's the former - "there's no point in living if you cant feel alive" e.g. Elektra in the Casino, Bond confronting Elektra in Baku palace. For such an important line/part of the plot a discussion about the discrepancy would be good.
- "For unspecified reasons the song was not allowed to be written in any studios based in USA" -- I'm guessing this whole paragraph is a brief summary of the section? Otherwise various elements need linked, i.e. the later quote that the work in Vancouver was "Garbagising" the song. Also since that is what is stated, perhaps written not the best word for "written in any studios..."
- Done Maybe Igordebraga edited it. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Space missing between TND and "and Scott"
- Wilson and Broccoli's status could be better explained than "principals of EON Productions" - what positions?
- Same paragraph - "collaborating on the song" is redundant.
- Next para - Nobody Does it Better needs italicised. As does Sunday Times later in article.
- Paragraph beginning "Arnold was quoted on The World Is Not Enough DVD commentary speaking about the challenge of creating a Bond theme tune" and the one beginning "During an interview for documentary Bond Cocktail, David Arnold spoke of the challenges in creating a Bond score" should be linked I think. Yes score and theme not the same, but in terms of difficulty/challenges etc. they are.
- Done reworked both paragraphs into one about Arnold, and moved a quote to the last one
- Again with the paragraph "Arnold was quoted on The World..." -- The punctuation is akward, dashes and brackets for no good reason. Also "which was ended up as the end title theme" is bad writing.
- Done removed igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Referring to MGM as plural - Companies should be singular, i.e. MGM initially disliked the song because it was a ballad and it had hoped for a theme song.
- Same paragraph, rmv dash.
- Increasing use of bigger and bigger quotations as the article goes on. IMO the balance tips toward overuse - consider paraphrasing some and using the quotations as refs?
- That will be a hell of a challenge - I started to turn some quotes into simple paragraphs.igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Also MOS says " A long quote (more than four lines, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of number of lines) is formatted as a block quotation" -- that would include many quotes in this article, e.g. the "part of the reason I thought Garbage would be such a good idea" quote.
- Turned this one into BQ, will try more later. igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, this should stay limited. Too many blockquotes is a cleanup category and will target this article's GA status too. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Same para as above - "Arnold expressed his desire" sounds like he was talking prior to signing them? Maybe better say "expressed his rationale for wanting" or the equivalent of.
- First instance of Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is spelled out, then the enxt instance is abbreviated. The correct format is first instance: Mr Kiss Kiss Band Bang (MKKBB) and second instance just: MKKBB.
- One instance of MKBB - missing a K
- "Initially, MGM had resisted composer David Arnold's suggestion to work with Garbage on the theme, they had wanted an artist a more mainstream profile, but Arnold convinced them that the group would bring a certain credibility and commercial clout to the Bond theme stable. Eventually the company relented, and the producers and the band reached a deal after a few weeks of negotiation" is too significant IMO to be uncited.
- Done This is nowhere in the sources and also contradicts many quotes. Removed.Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Butch Vig quoted around here but not introduced to later in the article as "drummer". Also he's quoted many times - the first instance should be Butch Vig and later just Vig. Too many "Butch"s - bit too informal.
- Done turned Butch into Vig igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Garbage drummer Butch Vig told CNN .... This was the first time we ever recorded with a 60-piece orchestra and that was a most excellent experience" is repitition.
- Done removed the orchestra part igordebraga ≠ 00:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- "scenes were filmed first(laboratory scene" space needed
- "The director, Philipp Stoelzl, came " repitition - consider just using surname 2nd time.
- "The version of "The World Is Not Enough" in the
actualmovie is a remix of the song, edited "
- "The single just failed to give Garbage their sixth top ten hit, stalling just outside at #11, but had a nine week chart run, which as of 2007, no Garbage single has achieved previously or since" -- sentence goes on too long and uses just twice.
- "in a surprisingly more sturdy digipack sleeve than the UK pressing;[37] both the printing and card sleeve was of better quality." an unnecessary fixation on the CD sleeve?
- Done how did I miss such cruft I'll never know.
- "The single was a success in many European countries that had previously not been receptive to Garbage
before"
- There's a disrepancy between the Holywood Reporter list and the Sunday Times denial issues by Arnold. So did the ones Arnold fail to deny audition?
- Done I have cleaned up the lines but the discrepancy continues. All sourced content ends (and OR begins) with David Arnold's denial. Vikrant Phadkay (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Inclusion in other media section - 1st paragraph: too many Alsos - merge a few sentences.
Mark83 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because, having some experience in obtaining FA for other settlements, I believe this one is up there with the best. It's not gone through the GA process because, as pointed out by another user, there is little to be gained by it (by which I mean for this article specifically! - not GAC itself!), and I've been assured that it not uncommon for articles to go straight to FA. If this upsets reviewers I apologise, but I hope they agree that this article flys through GA anyway.
A point of communication for reviewers. That "Oldham is in Greater Manchester" has a reference is there to assert verifiability for the benefit of a former distruptive editor with an unusual view of British geography; his various accounts banned (not blocked) about 6 times last year. The article is totally stable now however. Furthermore, as a UK settlement, this article is WP:UKCITIES compliant.
Other than that, all I can say is enjoy reading about my town! It may be ugly, but it's home! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose:
- 80 KiB. This article seriously needs more subpages. The TOC is also extremely lengthy.
- The article has 39KB prose, well within WP:SIZE guidelines of 30 to 50KB readable prose. The TOC looks fine, where do you see problems? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I concur; there are comparable geography/place class artices at FA with much more prose and lengthier contents. It is also inline with the relevant MOS on article size. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- This system came to an end however on 3 August 1946.—Awkward.
- Done, copyeditted. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Second paragraph of the sports section needs sources.
- Done, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oldham Athletic have had considerable success—Singular.
- Done -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The town has a notable theatrical culture.—POV.
- Done, rephrased and sourced, -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's all I have for now. O2 (息 • 吹) 00:40, 11 November 2007 (GMT)
- 80 KiB. This article seriously needs more subpages. The TOC is also extremely lengthy.
- Comment, per the instructions at both WP:FAC and WP:PR, please archive and close the peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- How does one close the peer review? I realise its old and gone stale, but I understood that a bot had to close it? -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Reference no. 31 is a dead link. Also the link where you sourced your data from in the demography template is not working. Both the links are from 'visionofbritain.org.uk' website. DSachan 01:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Could you please re-check this. Both appear to be functioning fine to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, they are working fine now, I guess there was some problem with the website at that time. DSachan 02:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply Could you please re-check this. Both appear to be functioning fine to me. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment This article is looking good, however, I was slightly confused by the comment in the lead that "with little early history to speak of" followed by a paragraph about the history from neolithic, roman and anglo-saxon times" I would say they provided significant history. I also found the sentence "Unmentioned in the Domesday Book, Oldham during the Middle Ages, from the time of its founding in the 9th century through to the Industrial Revolution, is believed to been nothing but a mere scattering of small and insignificant settlements spread across the moorland and dirt tracks which linked Manchester to York." complex and I had to read it 3 times.— Rod talk 17:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that sentence might be a little ambitious!.... As for the early history, it is the absolute sum- there is nothing else in the published realm about pre-industrial Oldham! There have been no castles, no battles, no great disasters, or cathedrals, nor any plots or visits by the monarch. The sentence itself appears, almost word-for-word in A Centenery History of Oldham, one of the major sources for the article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a few refs for listed buildings but in the education section the article talks about Blue Coat School, but the reference I found "Henshaw's Bluecoat School". Images of England. Retrieved 2007-11-14. uses a different title & uses Blue Coat as one word - can you confirm which is correct?— Rod talk 22:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the additional reference material. The official school website [41] and Ofsted [42] use The Blue Coat School. As such, I'd stick with using it! -- Jza84 · (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support not so bad --Mini@ 21:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support a very balanced and well structured article with great sources. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well sourced article that has a good compliance with all criteria. Anything wrong with the article could be easily fixed without compromising the article. Rudget zŋ 11:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well written and sourced article with the required coverage. Kbthompson (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - comprehensive & well supported.— Rod talk 09:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
This Chinese history article has achieved GA status already, and is one of 7 articles in a wikipedia featured topic for the main theme of the Song Dynasty. It's written quality is arguably on par with the other two featured articles in that wiki topic. Therefore I nominate this article for FA status.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Another fantastic Song Dynasty article. Pictures, citations and textual excerpts are of the highest quality. --Hemlock Martinis 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- comment In the section named 'Court cases', there is a multi-paragraph quotation. Each paragraph has a citation to the same reference. Should there just be one citation for the entire quote? Hmains 01:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. Since they are separated as paragraphs, I think it is safe to put the citation after each one, instead of just after the very last quoted paragraph. In the meantime, I will look into wikipedia's guidelines for quotations and see what I can find.--Pericles of AthensTalk
- Comment It looks great. A couple coverage concerns I have are the lack of information on the status of minorities, and the minimal information on entertainment. You don't need to duplicate the things that should be in the culture article, but some discussion of what entertainment was valued, what was accepted in high and low class, etc would be an important aspect of society. The only place I saw even a short mention was in the Urban life section. - Taxman Talk 20:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- Response: ??? There's additional information about entertainment in the next sub-section on social class; see the second and third paragraphs. I would add additional information on entertainment, but my Chinese history sources do not go overboard on the subject. Since entertainment is mentioned in two different sections of this Society article, I do think it is sufficient in coverage. With minorities in the Song Dynasty, yes there were plenty of different ethnic groups living in the major cities, especially the two capitals and the southern seaports such as Guangzhou and Quanzhou. This merits some discussion; I think I will add a paragraph at the end of the social class section about minorities. As to their status (legal or unofficial), I have never read any source that covered this thoroughly; I will check Jacques Gernet's book. Although he has a taste for nuance, he does not go into incredible detail on the subject, if I recall.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, yes I didn't see that. It almost covers it, but only in terms of occupations and what the poor did to entertain the wealthy. It would be better to cover it in general, but if it's not in the sources, then it's not. Otherwise looking again at the article, the structure seems a bit odd. There's a large section on urban life, what about rural? Obviously there's some information, but not at the same level of detail and presentation. The family and gender section is entirely about women. There's very little there about the family structure and respect except as it relates to women. I see the new section on minorities it looks pretty good. Is there any information on the relative proportions? You may be hard pressed to find that, but it would be good to compare it a little. Is it 1% minorities or 40% for ex. Does enough information exist to say their participation in society was minor and/or rare? Otherwise what's there does seem to imply it's small, so if there's no more info that's as good as it gets. - Taxman Talk 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just added an entire new sub-section on China's foreign community. However, not much is said of their status except for a couple Muslim guys who became a Quanzhou Shipping Commissioner and a Chief Court Astronomer, respectively.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Response It's not that the information doesn't exist, it's just that I don't own every book in the world. The only book I own that covers entertainment in detail would be Jacques Gernet's book, which I've already used pretty heavily for this article (almost half the citations). There is not a gigantic wealth of information known about rural life, spare farming techniques, religious customs, and some family traditions and pasttimes, etc. Gernet points this out actually; naturally much more will be known about the towns and cities, where most of the literate people and men of letters congregate and live. As for minority proportions, that's asking a bit much. I'm sure there's an estimation somewhere (afterall, the census was quite an accurate system back then for the medieval period, and overall Song population was 100 million). However, I don't think they were tedious enough back then to tally up every foreigner or person of ethnic difference and then figure out percentages related to the population as a whole. As for the family and gender section, actually quite a bit is mentioned about family matters (legal and other), but you're right, the information does center around women's involvement in the family. I suppose I could mention something about Confucian order and father-to-son relations. That will mean more searching of books for citations though.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment! I'm happy to announce that I've recently gone above and beyond your concerns with new large scale edits and improvements to the article. I expanded information on both the family and entertainment. Have a look!--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- '
Comments'I am so happy that someone is taking on these important articles! What an undertaking! I am slowly reading through the article. I am about half-way through. I thought I would post my first set of comments and the second set later.
What do you think about adding a map? Some of us are woefully ignorant of Chinese geography. Kmusser makes great maps. He made one for Plymouth Colony and one for Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark.
The article is overlinked. See WP:MOS-L for advice on linking.
Why are some scattered names in Chinese and others not? All names should either be translated or all not.
Small clarifications:
Something seems off about the first sentence - perhaps a more parallel structure wold help it?The first time any dynasty is mentioned, it would be helpful to have its approximate dates.These covered bazaars known as 'pleasure grounds' were places where strict social morals and formalities could be largely ignored. - not clear what "these" refers to in the context of the articleGaining a scholarly degree by passing prefectural, provincial, or palace exams in the Song period was far more a prerequisite in being selected for higher posts than in the earlier Tang period. - a more important prerequisite?
"greatest prerequisite" doesn't make sense either - you need a word, I think, like "important" or "significant" Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Much more so than scholar officials in the earlier Tang Dynasty, access to ranks, honors, and career appointments of Song scholar-officials were enhanced by their own merit and on far more objective criteria than in standards of the past. - a bit convoluted
New version is still hard to follow. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
How about something like this: "Song scholar-officials were granted ranks, honors, and career appointments on the basis of merit, the standards of which were codified and more objective than those in the Tang Dynasty." Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Fan set out to modify and erase corruption from the recruitment system, to provide higher salaries for minor officials in order to persuade them not to become corrupt and take bribes, and the establishment of sponsorship programs that would ensure officials were drafted on their merits, administrative skills, and character more than etiquette and cultured appearance. - needs parallel structureDuring the Song Dynasty, the whole of Chinese society was theoretically modelled upon this familial social order of superiors and inferiors, and how one regulated his or her behavior appropriately when dealing with an inferior or superior member of one's family or society. - It is not clear what the second half of the sentence adds.It is often perceived that women during the earlier Tang Dynasty were brazen, assertive, active, and relatively more socially liberated. - "It is often claimed" perhaps?; "more socially liberated" than when? Comparatives need a comparison.Evidence of foot binding as a growing trend in the Southern Song period would certainly reinforce this notion. - Can a period have a "South"?The economic prosperity of the Song period prompted many families to provide their daughters with larger dowries in order to attract the most potential and wealthy son-in-laws. - "the most potential" is just hanging here - awkward
new version is still awkward - how about "desirable marriage candidates" or "eligible marriage candidates"? "potential" doesn't make sense there Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
There were also many professional courtesans in the cities (or brought back home as concubines) to keep men busy in the pursuits of entertainment, relations, and romantic affairs. - parenthetical is awkwardly phrasedEarlier native Chinese religious beliefs in Daoism and beliefs in foreign-originated Buddhism continued into the Song period. - awkward
new version contrasts "ideologies" with "minorities" - non-parallel Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Although many followed the teachings of Buddha, there were also many critics of the ideology. - An ideology, philosophy, or religion?Under "Court cases", there are three large block quotations. Since they are all from the same page, why don't you put ellipses between them instead of breaking them up with separate footnotes to indicate that they are from separate sections of the page?
The first block quotation begins "A proclomation" - is that a misprint in the source? If so, it should have [sic] after it.
This is a long article, necessarily so by its topic, but I think that some of the length can be cut by reducing the wordiness of the sentences. Here are two examples of what I mean:
- Much like the earlier Tang capital, though, the Song capitals of Kaifeng and Hangzhou still featured wide, open avenues to create fire breaks that would ensure fires would remain isolated to one district should they occur.
- Rewrite: "Much like the earlier Tang capital, the Song capitals of Kaifeng and Hangzhou featured wide, open avenues to create fire breaks."
- Done I replaced the sentence in question with your own rendition.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Although urban life was orderly and organized, in order to maintain a properly-functioning empire, the Song court had to make sure the countryside was run efficiently and was just as orderly.
- Rewrite: "In order to ensure an orderly urban life and a properly-functioning empire, the Song court made certain that the countryside was run efficiently."
- Done I replaced the sentence in question with your own rendition.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
MOS, etc.:
The MOS discourages the use of "call-out quotes" in articles (see WP:MOSQUOTE).The "References" need to give the original publication date for Castiglione's book, otherwise it looks modern.The Cambridge Illustrated History of China - give only the ISBN for the edition you used (page numbers will be different).Journal titles should be italicized in the "References".
There are many large paragraphs in this article. While I personally don't have a problem with this, wikipedia-style tends towards the shorter paragraph. I think that this is because readers are scared of big blocks of text.
Are you planning on doing a "Government in the Song Dynasty" page? I would have thought "Justice system" and maybe even the "Armed forces" sections would have gone there.
Excellent job - I am learning so much. That is the best kind of article to review. Awadewit | talk 22:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Response Wow! I will certainly take everything you've suggested to heart. I'm glad that more people are taking an interest in the article. Unfortunately, I am very busy at the moment, and will be for the rest of the week. Hopefully I will be able to properly address all of your concerns within the week, if my now busy school schedule permits it.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I understand completely. I look forward to being able to support the article soon. I definitely think that after a little polishing, it is FA material. Awadewit | talk 03:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have somehow found the time (even though I just took a midterm exam this morning) to address all of your concerns about rewording and clarification. I'm quite fast when it comes to typing I suppose. Lol. As for your confusion about the "Southern Song" period in the women's section (when talking about the rise of the tradition of footbinding), I don't know if you got around to reading the "Armed forces" section yet, but it explains why the Song period is divided between Northern Song and Southern Song (so does the intro of the main Song Dynasty article). It is because northern China was conquered by the Jurchens, and the court fled south from Kaifeng to Hangzhou, making the latter the new capital, a move which demarcated a new era of the dynasty, the "Southern" period.
- I am not planning on making an entire new article on Song government, since the military and justice system sections have much to reveal about Song society, the focus of this article. Plus, the Song Dynasty is already an accepted featured topic, and people who nominated it as such pointed out that there were no obvious gaps of missing articles that could make Song Dynasty a featured topic.
- I could attempt to break up some large paragraphs in the article for sake of the reader's patience with large blocks of text, but seriously, many of them are reasonably lengthy and do not have sentences that stray from the topic of the paragraph.
- As for a map, the only place I think that would be appropriate would be the military section, where geography is somewhat important in the description of the northern-southern split of China. But really, if someone wanted to see a map of the Song Empire, they could easily refer to the lead picture in the main article, as well as another map in the first section on history that shows the bounds of the Southern Song and Jin Dynasty to the north after 1127.
- If you have strong objections to these and truly think the article could do better with a map and such, please state them here. Otherwise, I have addressed all your technical concerns (like clarifying that the Ebrey book used was the paperback edition), and I think the article is fast approaching FA class.--Pericles of AthensTalk 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Funny. I am grading midterm papers. :)
- I had not reached the "Armed Forces" section when I asked about the "Southern Song" - I wonder if there is some way to forestall questions like that, in case someone doesn't read Song Dynasty first?
- I would seriously think about a government page of some sort. Just because no editors mentioned it doesn't mean it wouldn't be a good addition. See Ancient Rome and Ancient Egypt, for example.
- I agree that your paragraphs are on topic - it is more of a wiki-style issue. If you feel uncomfortable changing them, do not.
- I would strongly encourage you to include a map. I wanted one the minute I started reading the article. Knowing very little about China myself, I wanted to know where all of the cities were exactly and where in relation to each other that were mentioned in "Urban life". Try to put yourself in the position of the lay reader. Someone could go to the main article, but why force them? Offer knowledge on a silver platter. Obviously I won't oppose based on the lack of a map (how absurd!), but I do think that you should consider it.
- The article is looking better. Awadewit | talk 18:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, you're a professor! That's cool. I aim to become a professor one of these days.
- Alas, I am a lowly graduate student. I, too, aim to become a professor. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added the information about the distinction between Northern Song and Southern Song in the second paragraph of Urban Life, where it talks about the two capitals, Kaifeng and Hangzhou. I thought that was a fitting place to introduce it. I also added two maps to the Armed forces section, one for the Northern Song boundaries, and one right below that map for the Southern Song boundaries.
- Excellent. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I addressed your second round of concerns about the wording of some awkward sentences. I hope this second attempt of mine to reword some of those awkward sentences is better than the first!
- I am still diametrically opposed (lol) to the notion that a separate Government of the Song Dynasty article should be created, although that title does have a nice ring to it. :) I think that the sections on partisan politics, the justice system, and the armed forces are pivotal to understanding Song society. The Partisan politics section follows the sections discussing the scholar official class, education, and recruitment of officials into government. The factionalized government itself is a subject of the workings of society, including the educational and political reform of the era. The two subjects are inseparable, and deleting it from this article will only damage its quality and the reader's ability the understand the topic fully. The justice system is an extension of this as well, as the scholar officials are the judges themselves! It is but one of their duties. It shows the moral outlook of that period on how to govern a just society, along with legal issues amongst different groups of people, how courts were maintained, and how law and order was related to Song society. The military section provides information on soldiers and their position in society, and is an extension of the information provided in the social class section, in order to provide the reader with a fuller sense of that social group (along with necessary info on events). Song society was affected by martial events and its own military. It was also a section that had to be added in order for the article to pass GA review, and I agreed with the reviewer at the time (look to the discussion page).--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- If you feel that this is the best arrangement, I will trust you, since I have absolutely no knowledge of this topic. Awadewit | talk 20:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cool. I replaced that one sentence about ranks, honors, and appointments with the cleaner, adjusted sentence that you suggested above.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've noticed that you haven't crossed out your statement that the article is over-linked, so I have taken the liberty of combing through the article a second time and deleting about 30 or 40 links that could be considered low quality and somewhat irrelevant to the main topic. I hope the latest round of link deletions will be sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted some more myself. Looks better. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great! It does look better. I have a question though. You have not yet struck out the statement about the scattered Chinese character names in the article, even though I deleted those (the only ones I found were in the education section, which were Chinese translations for the various academies listed). Is there a reason why this statement is not yet struck out? Also, you have not yet struck out the statement on Fan Zhongyan and the statement about him needing more parallel structure. I thought that I had remedied that situation when I split the sentence into two...is there still a problem?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is still one translation - for the New Policies Group. Perhaps this is a necessary translation? (By the way, it helps reviewers enormously if you write below each comment "done" or even paste in a copy of your reworded sentence so that they know you have addressed an issue. That way they don't have to go hunting through the article to check or click through all of the recent changes.) Awadewit | talk 18:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Great! It does look better. I have a question though. You have not yet struck out the statement about the scattered Chinese character names in the article, even though I deleted those (the only ones I found were in the education section, which were Chinese translations for the various academies listed). Is there a reason why this statement is not yet struck out? Also, you have not yet struck out the statement on Fan Zhongyan and the statement about him needing more parallel structure. I thought that I had remedied that situation when I split the sentence into two...is there still a problem?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I deleted some more myself. Looks better. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done I just got rid of the translation, and added a hidden link to the History of the Song Dynasty article. The reason I do not use the done marker at the beginning of FA review bullets is because a certain FA reviewer a while back told me to stop using them, as they were very "annoying" to that wikipedia member. I took that advice to heart, but for you I make this one exception. Lol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I was just saying you should somehow indicate that you had addressed the concern. Yes, apparently many people don't like the checks (I don't care either way - why get upset over that?). Awadewit | talk 19:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Beats me, I just stopped using them after the initial complaint, thinking that person's opinion was a general consensus of FA reviewers. That episode happened during the first time I nominated an article for Featured Article status. I was young then, full of venturing confidence, fiddling with new wikipedia command codes in a vast and uncharted featured article nominating process (lol!), but the scars of that merciless, cold-hearted rebuke and beratement for daring to use the check mark have inflicted pain and doubtfulness upon my psyche, esteem, and groove on wikipedia ever since! [/dramatic sarcasm]. Lol. Oh, by the way, are you going to support this article now? Have I jumped through enough fiery hoops in order to satisfy your high standards for impeccable use of grammar, vocabulary, and sentence structure? Please say yes!--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- FAC can indeed be merciless. I think I've been through about twelve now or something. I'm sorry I have made this seem like hoops - I never wanted to do that! Actually, the most important thing - reducing wordiness - hasn't been taken care of. I gave two examples of sentences to change, which you did, but those were only examples. The idea was for you to see those and say "ah ha! now, I totally understand the problem!" Why don't I copy edit one section of the article to show you what I mean. You can spend some time studying the edits and hopefully do the rest yourself. One of the best ways to improve your writing is to have someone go over it meticulously with you (as I tell my students daily). Awadewit | talk 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I did a quick copy edit of "Urban life" so you can get a feel of what I am talking about. Awadewit | talk 01:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- FAC can indeed be merciless. I think I've been through about twelve now or something. I'm sorry I have made this seem like hoops - I never wanted to do that! Actually, the most important thing - reducing wordiness - hasn't been taken care of. I gave two examples of sentences to change, which you did, but those were only examples. The idea was for you to see those and say "ah ha! now, I totally understand the problem!" Why don't I copy edit one section of the article to show you what I mean. You can spend some time studying the edits and hopefully do the rest yourself. One of the best ways to improve your writing is to have someone go over it meticulously with you (as I tell my students daily). Awadewit | talk 23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just completed some major edits to the Urban Life section as well, but I will need more time to comb through the rest of the article. As for today, I have yet another midterm! It comes at 4:30 pm. So I will naturally be very busy today. And guess what? I have a paper due tomorrow! Busy bee.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. Best to take the time to do it well. Awadewit | talk 20:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes & support
- Comprehensive article.
- I don't feel there is enough internal links to wiki articles though. Learnedo 08:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- It might be a good idea if you listed some words/phrases you think should be linked as we have just spent time removing a bunch of unnecessary links per WP:MOS-L. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 08:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're the editor. You'd make better decisions than me, hopefully. Learnedo 06:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pericles is the primary editor of this article. Usually when reviewers make comments, they try to be as specific as possible. It is difficult for us to know what you think should be linked unless you offer us some examples. Obviously, between Pericles and myself, we have linked what we think is appropriate. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 07:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm...I'm guessing the "Yes" means "support", yes?--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Update: Recent edits to the article's section titles got me thinking, and I realized that some of the titles did not adequately reflect the content that was described in the sections, so I have made a few drastic changes and rearrangements with new sub-sections and new title changes. I hope everyone favors these recent changes.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have made even more changes to the article with additional information about the gentry, commerce, etc., have a look see!--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is the copy editing coming? Awadewit | talk 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pericles, do you know a good copy editor? I think what this article needs at this point is someone unfamiliar with its prose to tighten everything up. It is still quite wordy. I would volunteer myself except I am extremely busy at the moment - it would probably take me 2-3 weeks to finish a copy edit. What do you think of posting it at the League of Copyeditors? You might also ask Scartol. He is an excellent copyeditor and might be willing to help out. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It usually takes a long time for the League to get anything done, I've seen that first-hand with other articles I've raised to Featured Article Status in the past. I will instead leave a message on Scartol's talk page. Thank you for suggesting Scartol.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I went ahead and contacted the league anyway; hopefully they will help out soon.--Pericles of AthensTalk 22:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pericles, do you know a good copy editor? I think what this article needs at this point is someone unfamiliar with its prose to tighten everything up. It is still quite wordy. I would volunteer myself except I am extremely busy at the moment - it would probably take me 2-3 weeks to finish a copy edit. What do you think of posting it at the League of Copyeditors? You might also ask Scartol. He is an excellent copyeditor and might be willing to help out. Awadewit | talk 09:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is the copy editing coming? Awadewit | talk 21:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Scartol is now helping to tidy up the article, and it reads much better now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have made even more changes to the article with additional information about the gentry, commerce, etc., have a look see!--Pericles of AthensTalk 19:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Support: The article does indeed read better now. I support. Awadewit | talk 07:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome! I'm glad you like the article, and the new painting I just added to the women's section.--Pericles of AthensTalk 13:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Opposeuntil fixed. SUPPORT: nice. This is very promising, but does need a copy-edit throughout. See my light copy-edit of the lead, with quite a few inline queries. In AmEng, surely you don't hyphenate "land-holder"? And it was conjoined at one point. Have I got it wrong? "[Women] nonetheless enjoyed a wide range of social and legal rights that benefited them in an otherwise patriarchal society"—let's be careful claiming that; I hope there are good references later on in the article. The lead contains many unreferenced statements that should be cross-checked for verifiability where they are covered below. Can we drop the "UPon"? It's the 21st century. Issues of logical connection in a few places. Rather long first caption, and check MOS about final period. "108,840 kg (120 tons)"—is that really the conversion? I though ton and tonne were almost the same. Do we need a link for "telegraph" and other dictionary words? Readers should just look them up if they don't know what they mean; or learn English. There are some abstruse piped links that look as though they lead somewhere useful, but will readers ever click on them? ("restaurants", for example). Perhaps think of putting the link into a more likely item? And "actors" goes to "Chinese opera"; I think this is a distortion. Links need an audit. Read MOS on the spacing of ellipses, and logical punctuation. Tony (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)- Response
- "In AmEng, surely you don't hyphenate 'land-holder'? And it was conjoined at one point. Have I got it wrong?" - Tony
- Nope, my mistake. There was one other place in the article with the hyphen between "land" and "holder", which I have now fixed.
- "let's be careful claiming that; I hope there are good references later on in the article." - Tony
- There is not one, in fact, since I put that statement in the introduction to intentionally mislead you...because I am evil. Lol. No, seriously, read the sub-section "Women: Legality and Lifestyles," it is carefully and meticulously cited.
- "The lead contains many unreferenced statements that should be cross-checked for verifiability where they are covered below." - Tony
- A lead should contain no inline citations unless that introductory information does not appear somewhere in the article below, or is there but without citations (to be honest, it should always have citations in the body of the article). An introduction is merely a brief summary of everything found in the article, and everything in the article is well-referenced.
- "Can we drop the "UPon"? It's the 21st century." - Tony
- Lol. If you can't stand it, by all means, change it, be my guest.
- "Do we need a link for 'telegraph' and other dictionary words? Readers should just look them up if they don't know what they mean; or learn English." - Tony
- Good point. I have changed that. I swept through the article earlier and delinked many low quality wikilinks...I must have missed that or not thought much of it until you mentioned it.
- "There are some abstruse piped links that look as though they lead somewhere useful, but will readers ever click on them? ('restaurants', for example). Perhaps think of putting the link into a more likely item?" - Tony
- That is a good point; the "restaurants" link brings you here to a high quality link specifically about Song Dynasty cuisine and restaurants. I think I can find another spot to link that, or link a phrase about restaurants to make it more suggestive of a special link.
Good suggestions, yet I would save some of the criticism until you've read the entire article, such as doubting the validity of statements in the introduction.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- "'108,840 kg (120 tons)' —is that really the conversion? I though ton and tonne were almost the same."
- Gernet says 120 tons, and since it is not spelled as tonnes (as in the metric tonne), I used the English or imperial ton in figuring the amount of kg. What, is there a problem with that?--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - good article. Coloane 17:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Kicking ass and taking names! --Ghostexorcist 07:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
Hello, this is a self nomination of the article. It's passed GA requirements, and I believe the article is of Featured Artcile quality now. Everything looks well organized and cited. Thanks, Gak Blimby 18:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Meets the criteria, readable, well-referenced and pleasing to the eye. Only a little problem - red links should be adressed or removed. --Shahid • Talk2me 23:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done OK, I got rid of every red link but the one for the cartoon series Detention because it is relevant to Warner Bros. animation history and an article may be created about it in the future. Gak Blimby 23:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Concur in general with SandyGeorgia. Removal of redlinks are not an explicit requirement for FA status. However, this can be somewhat covered under "...the best Wikipedia has to offer..." Personally, I would prefer there be no red links, but I will not oppose an FA nom on this issue. — BQZip01 — talk 21:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Object This article doesn't meet 1(a). From the first paragraph of the body (where I started):- "Although Animaniacs had been set in Burbank, California,[2] the series took place in various places and periods of times."—did the location move later? Why not simply "is set in"? If the series took place "in various places", is it fair to say it's set in Burbank?
- Done Claryfied. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "The Animaniacs characters also interacted with..." Why also?
- Done Removed. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Although characters from Animaniacs acted in their own segments..." Is the alternative even possible? (Characters did not act in their own segments?)
- Done I removed the sentence, as it didn't belong in that section anyways. Gak Blimby 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Animaniacs segments had varied in both length and setting", "Animaniacs segments ranged in time...", and "Although some episodes went on for longer or shorter periods" all in the same paragraph, and all say the same thing.
- Done Only one sentence says it now. Gak Blimby 03:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
- All throughout this paragraph there are strange tense uses. "Andrea Romano... had said that the Warners had functioned to..." instead of "Andrea Romano... said that the Warners function to...", etc.
- Done Tenses fixed. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Three of the eight sentences start with "Although"—try to mix things up and not reuse the same sentence format too much.
- One sentence is missing a period.
- Done Fixed. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Although Animaniacs had been set in Burbank, California,[2] the series took place in various places and periods of times."—did the location move later? Why not simply "is set in"? If the series took place "in various places", is it fair to say it's set in Burbank?
- If the entire article is of this quality, you need to enlist the help of some good copy editors to help rework things. Pagrashtak 21:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to do a check of the rest of the article to look for what else is not up to par. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done
- I don't have time to read the entire article right now, but I read random pieces and the prose seemed fine, so I'll strike my objection. Pagrashtak 22:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to do a check of the rest of the article to look for what else is not up to par. Gak Blimby 22:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's fine. Learnedo 07:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Support, but there are things to fix. Here are just examples.
- "The studio's first series, Tiny Toon Adventures, was a success among younger viewing audiences, and it attracted a sizable number of adult viewers as well." Try: "The studio's first series, Tiny Toon Adventures, was a success among younger viewers, and attracted a sizable number of adult viewers."
- You couldn't list in running form, separated by commas in the infobox? That would save its huge vertical range, which causes bad formatting at the bottom.
- Unfortunately, when I tried that, it changed the infobox length only a little and made it hard to read. Gak Blimby 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Read up on ellipses at MOS. Need to be spaced. MOS breach in the final punctuation in quotes, which should be outside the quote unless it belongs in the original.
- "won it's last"—ouch.
- Done Although I didn't really consider it a problem. Gak Blimby 22:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "forty", but "8". Please read MOS on this.
- I like that fact that almost all of the dates are unlinked/autoformatted. Pity a few still are, though. Tony (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support although I preferred the other WB animations, the article is in great shape, well written and referenced. Hope Pinky and the Brain gets the FA treatment as well... igordebraga ≠ 17:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Meets the criteria; comprehensive, well-written and well-referenced. Good use of images.--Opark 77 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support i'm impressed Legalbeaver 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is very well researched, documented, and notated in a style that is very neutral and informative. The article is a controversial topic but has been forged into a very neutral stance and all editors are happy with it's tone and scope. The article is among the best I have worked on for wikipedia, although my role is more minor than others who have contributed. It is formatted properly and upon review for GA status it was recommended to be submitted for FA status, so here we are. Twunchy 16:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is a good. article that stays neutral about its controversial topic. A good example of how an article about a controversial topic can be well-written. Zeus1234 08:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pass & support Learnedo 08:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Full disclosure: I'm a contributor to the article. However, a lot of people have worked on this over the months, and the article has been stable for a long time, which is remarkable considering its controversial nature. I think it is one of the most thoroughly referenced articles out there. I hope that reviewers will take a look and add their votes and comments. COGDEN 00:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- MOS breach in the placement of final quotation marks after sentence-final punctuation. It's inconsisent, anyway. See MOS on "logical" punctuation. No final period in captions that are not full sentences; e.g., full-scale model and Hill. Opening letter upper-case, please. Tony (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I believe I have fixed all the punctuation and capitalization, and converted to logical quotes. COGDEN 01:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
This article about a small Somerset village was previously nominated and the issues identified addressed. Many of the comments were about the need for copyediting which I believe have now been addressed by User:Malleus Fatuarum and others from the Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. I beleive that the artcicle now meets the featured article criteria.— Rod talk 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Pretty thourough article, but I do have some comments before I can make a decision on whether to support:
- Those convert templates are very useful and it thought me something new. However, the WP:MOS requires that the first instance of a unit is wikified. The template allows for it, but none of the units are linked in the article. Done
- "Bilbie clocks date from 1724 and are highly prized." Do you mean that all clocks were made in 1724? If not, perhaps 'date back to' may be more a more accurate phrase. Done
- Coverage: How many members are there on the village council? How many people are there on the police force? Which fire station serves them? Done
- "It is currently represented by Councillor Malcolm Hannay,"
Does 'it' refer to the village council or the unitary authority of Bath and North East Somerset? Done - In demographics: "The area is largely rural, with several farms, both arable and dairy." Done
This phrase is a repeat from the previous section and the lead. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those convert templates are very useful and it thought me something new. However, the WP:MOS requires that the first instance of a unit is wikified. The template allows for it, but none of the units are linked in the article.
- Response - thanks for pointing these out - hopefully they have been revised appropriately?— Rod talk 16:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm|(talk) 18:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Pass & support
- On the basis that its good enough. Leranedo 02:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I have slight concerns about the sources below, but I would need a second opinion before opposing.
- [43] - seems to be self-published. Although, it might be acceptable as it is by a local historian.
- [44] - the article is based on an unpublished survey. Unpublished works may not have had enough fact-checking to be reliable.
- [45] - based on an unpublished survey. Epbr123 17:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Response to take your concern individually
- [46] is self published but the author is an established local historian & tour guide - I ahve not heard any complaints about its reliability but would accept it is not verified by external sources.
- [47] & [48] are both from the "Images of England" site by English Heritage & are about as authoritive as you can get in England. To quote from their web site "English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Officially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Our powers and responsibilities are set out in the National Heritage Act (1983) and today we report to Parliament through the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport." I think they count as independent and reliable. Many of the descriptions used in granting listed building status come from the books by Nikolaus Pevsner, which are one of the most definitive reference sources we have for historic buildings. — Rod talk 17:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Excellent article. Well done! -- Jza84 · (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
Self-nomination:I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it matches the featured article criteria. It is part of a potential New World Vulture featured topic. heyjude. 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I'll raise the same query I did on Turkey Vulture; do the dates in the "Reproduction" section accurately reflect what happens in South America as well, or is this information only correct for North America? MeegsC | Talk 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- ah, I see the problem (and this does need to be fixed also in Turkey Vulture). The dates used here seem to apply only to North America; this needs to be addressed to conform with WP:SEASON (the information should reflect their full range). It's too bad Turkey Vulture slid through without this being addressed. I hope this isn't occurring on other bird articles when their range crosses hemispheres. This issue should be raised on the Bird Project. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is the only link I've found (by searching on zamuro Venezuela—a search on buitre negro or buitre americano Argentina may turn up something.). The site is silent on dates, but does give numerous links for further searches. If anyone turns up something and wants help in Spanish, please ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Found a lead by searching on "Coragyps atratus Argentina".[62] If this is a good site, it appears the seasons are reversed, as suspected, in the Southern hemisphere, and there are different dates near the equator. "Entre octubre y noviembre en la Argentina (enero y abril en el hemisferio norte y febrero y junio en la zona ecuatorial) el jote negro modifica su rutina diaria e inicia su ciclo anual de reproducción." This says the reproductive cycle begins between October and November in Argentina, January to April in the Northern Hemisphere, and February to June near the equator. I believe Joelr31 (talk · contribs) will probably have journal sources in Spanish to help you get to the bottom of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry Jude, I didn't mean to drop you in it here! Do you have Raptors of the World? That will undoubtedly have the information. If not, let me know ASAP and I'll try to find out for you. I'm leaving for Gambia tomorrow and didn't want to spend too much time tonight researching if I didn't have to—I still have to pack! :) MeegsC | Talk 21:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have it. If you could find the information for me, I would be extremely grateful. Cheers, heyjude. 22:35, 7 November 2007
- Done Have a look and see what you think. As for me, I now support this one! MeegsC | Talk 23:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looks great. Thanks so much! heyjude. 01:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: I've already given this article my two cents and Jude has answered all of my questions. Great article and great job Jude! Though this calendar thing does need to be adressed... Rufous-crowned Sparrow 19:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Ditto, they're getting more polished each time...well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support very informative but I would like to see the distribution and habitat section expanded a little bit --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 13:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This article is well written, well-sourced and comprehensive. --Carioca 04:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. As with the others, an excellent and well-sourced article. Coemgenus 16:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.
Guitarist of the American alternative rock band Pixies. Quite an interesting article to write actually. Objections should be addressed quickly. CloudNine 09:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Great work. All my issues were addressed in the peer review. Tommy Stardust 07:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. My comments at the peer review were professionally addressed. Santiago is not exactly the most documented figure in rock, but this article represents a systematic marshalling of the information available. Another valuable contribution to the Wikipedia Pixies coverage by CloudNine.qp10qp 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very nice. All of my concerns were taken care of after I passed it as a GA. At that point a Peer Review was unnecessary in my eyes; it's FA class without a doubt. NSR77 TC 16:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great work, again Cloud nine. To take issue with Qp10qp; a lot has been recorded, spoken, and written about this guitarist. In quite places though; and CloudNine has found them all. Ceoil 18:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. There's a surprising amount of information about said guitarist. Expanding Dave Lovering is the real challenge now. CloudNine 00:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I like this article a great deal. I made some edits, many minor, to help tighten it up a bit. I have some other concerns and questions, but I lean toward support. Here are the problematic things I saw (in order of appearance, not importance):
- NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but to make this now long page easier to read, I've taken the liberty of replacing your instances of "Done" with the template Done, and also added it in other places where you indicated that you finished off the issue but hadn't written "Done." --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- NOTE: I hope you don't mind, but to make this now long page easier to read, I've taken the liberty of replacing your instances of "Done" with the template
- In the lead, there are several years mentioned, but no years are given to place the Pixies heyday. It's a little strange to be introduced to Santiago in the first sentence and be told he's best known as being part of the Pixies, then be told they broke up in 1993 without having been told when they were playing in the first place. Perhaps this is as simple as adding "in the late 1980s and early 1990s" to the first sentence, or perhaps there's a better way to do this. But I think it's pretty important to place the era of Santiago's best known music in the first sentence.
- Done I think I had this before, but removed it in the interests of brevity.
- In the "Youth and college" section, does his birthdate bear repeating? I've seen many WP biographies that do not repeat it, since it's in both the lead and infobox.
- In my opinion, yes. It gives a context to the start of the biography.
- In the "Pixies" section, the following sentence is confusing: "They both took temporary jobs working in a warehouse, with Santiago working for a butcher block company." The first clause makes it sound like they worked in the same warehouse, but the second phrase makes it sound like Santiago worked at the butcher block company and implies that Thompson worked in some other warehouse. Which is it?
- Done Hopefully I've clarified this now.
- "Pixies" section. "The pair arrived at a name after Santiago selected the word randomly from a dictionary and liked the definition, 'mischievous little elves.'" Should that comma be a colon?
- When I've seen sources mention the definition, it's usually with a comma.
- "Pixies" section. "The Pixies rehearsed throughout 1985 and 1986, and began touring around Boston in late 1986 and during 1987." Were they playing only in the Boston metropolitan area at this time? (I think so.) If so, "touring" isn't the right term. "Touring" implies leaving home to go on the road. They lived in Boston, and therefore it is more correct to say that they "began performing around Boston." If they actually played beyond the metropolitan area that early, then say something like they "began touring around New England."
- Done Nope, just Boston in the early days. Clarified with "performed".
- "Pixies" section. "Santiago met his future wife, Linda Mallari, when he sat beside her after a 1987 Pixies concert at The Rathskeller." The Rat is (was?) a tiny club. What a hole! But what a great venue—I fell in love there in 1986... but I digress. Ahem. Anyway, The Rat was just a small club (not a theater or concert hall), so most people would not label a performance at a small club like that a concert. The most accurate American rock term would be "show," or "gig," not "concert," or in lieu of those, "performance." But "concert" implies a longer performance at a large venue, neither of which were true about a Pixies show at The Rat in 1987.
- Done Indeed. I've always "gig", "show" and "concert" as interchangable, but I can see your point here. Replaced with "show".
- Also, no one called The Rat by its full, formal name. If I remember correctly, all their advertisements and the club's sign during those years said simply "The Rat." I think you'd be more accurate going with that. How do your books refer to it? Are there any photos of the door? Reprints of Pixies bills?
- I tend to use "The Rathskellar", because that's the name of the Wikipedia article on the place and its proper name. An analogy would be "Coca-Cola" and "Coke".
- I see your logic, but I'm not sure the analogy works in this case. Everyone knows that "Coca-Cola" is "Coke", but most people from Boston I know would say, "Where was The Rathskellar? I never heard of it." I don't think it's correct to use the WP article's name as your guide on this; if your reference material says "The Rat" 99% of the time, then I think you should say "The Rat." I doubt you will find a single quote from the Pixies or journalists referring to "The Rathskellar"—or a gig flyer, etc. Go to your sources for guidance, not the WP article on the club. If no one, including the club itself in its ads and signage, called it "The Rathskellar" in the 1980s and beyond, then its original "proper name" has ceased to be in usage and is not correct. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done Replaced it with the Rat for now. You were right; I couldn't find a quote. I'll probably put in a move request on The Rathskellar soon to clarify things. CloudNine (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to use "The Rathskellar", because that's the name of the Wikipedia article on the place and its proper name. An analogy would be "Coca-Cola" and "Coke".
- "Pixies" section. You write, "his trademark erratic lead guitar." I think this comes off more negatively than you intend—it can be taken to mean that he lacked control over his instrument, and I'm sure we agree that that's not the case. It also doesn't illuminate what he sounds like very well, and this is the first mention of his style in the body of the article. I think "angular," "stabbing," "piercing," "volcanic" and a host of other adjectives would be more appropriate.
- Done Good point. I've replaced it with "angular" for now.
- Also, I know that the main Pixies article is linked, but is there further information in your sources that could be discussed here about how Santiago developed his guitar sound during this early Pixies time? It was quite remarkable and influential, and it might be nice to hear more about some of the landmark moments that happened musicially during this time, if possible. I know that as a musician, I'd like to hear just a few key Santiago arranging and/or recording anecdotes in this section, lest it be too weighted toward being a chronological list of events.
- Sure. I'll be working on this.
- "Pixies" section. "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, as well as constantly touring." This seems grammatically incorrect, though I must apologize that I can't explain exactly the term for it. I think the verbs need to agree; as it is, the last phrase seems to dangle. How about "...; the Pixies had released three albums in two years, while touring constantly"?
- Done Perhaps it's a dangling modifier? Rephrased; it reads much better now.
- On to "The Martinis..." section. "The band played live only occasionally, and toured until 2001." This is an odd combination. First you say that they rarely played out, then you say that they were touring until 2001. Did they actually play extended tours or did they only play occasional shows? Not sure what the reality is, but this needs more clarity.
- Hopefully I've clarified it now.
- That's better, but it might be good to additionally write (in the Smitten paragraph) that although they did continue to do studio work, they no longer played live.
- Done. Thanks.
- That's better, but it might be good to additionally write (in the Smitten paragraph) that although they did continue to do studio work, they no longer played live.
- Hopefully I've clarified it now.
- "The Martinis..." section. You write, "a limited edition extended play"—perhaps this is WP's encylopedic style, but I've never seen this written out in writing about rock. Is it OK to say "EP"?
- I tend to favour clarity over brevity; not everyone knows what an EP stands for.
- True, but because almost no one says or writes "extended play," it's not particularly clarifying to know what "EP" stands for. No one commonly says "I just bought a fantastic '70s soul long play"—they say "LP". That's the term that has more meaning, because it has more usage, and many people have no idea what the abbreviation stands for. It's the same for EP; many music fans know what "EP" means—fewer songs than an "LP" but more than a single—but couldn't tell you what the abbreviation actually stands for, and the word "extended" is not specifically meaningful anyway. Also, "extended play" is awkward to say within a sentence without saying "extended play record" or "extended play album," whereas "EP" is commonly said on its own. Therefore, I'd suggest using "EP" with a link rather than "extended play". I think it's better for Wikipedia to follow the style of how music writers write about these things rather than to impose phraselogy that isn't commonly used.
- Done Replaced with EP for now. I see your point.
- True, but because almost no one says or writes "extended play," it's not particularly clarifying to know what "EP" stands for. No one commonly says "I just bought a fantastic '70s soul long play"—they say "LP". That's the term that has more meaning, because it has more usage, and many people have no idea what the abbreviation stands for. It's the same for EP; many music fans know what "EP" means—fewer songs than an "LP" but more than a single—but couldn't tell you what the abbreviation actually stands for, and the word "extended" is not specifically meaningful anyway. Also, "extended play" is awkward to say within a sentence without saying "extended play record" or "extended play album," whereas "EP" is commonly said on its own. Therefore, I'd suggest using "EP" with a link rather than "extended play". I think it's better for Wikipedia to follow the style of how music writers write about these things rather than to impose phraselogy that isn't commonly used.
- I tend to favour clarity over brevity; not everyone knows what an EP stands for.
- Section organizational problem. "The Martinis and later projects" and "Smitten and Pixies reunion" are a little odd organizationally. These were the thoughts that arose as I read these two sections: 1) Why did a new section start when I'm still reading about The Martinis? Shouldn't The Martinis stuff be together in one section? 2) Wait, that first section was mostly about things other than The Martinis... 3) Why is this section named for a rather obscure album, Smitten? 4) Why is that obscure album given equal weight with the Pixies reunion in the section title? 5) Why am I reading about his **Weeds work twice, at the end of both of these sections? There are probably several ways you could solve these problems. Both sections are short—you could combine them into one. Or, put everything but the Pixies reunion in the first section, then have the final section contain only the reunion info. Whatever you do, you'll need to retitle the section(s), and I would suggest putting something about film and TV composing in the title, since this seems very important to his recent career, and is emphasized in the text.
- A very good point. I believe I've addressed all your points (except perhaps the last).
- "Musical style" section. You write, "Santiago still often speaks of a lack of confidence on the guitar; as he was learning the instrument, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur." This is oddly contradictory. First you say he still speaks of something that hasn't been mentioned before. Then you link the idea via semi-colon to how he felt when he was learning, as if this backs up or carries on the idea in the previous statement. I think it would make more sense to say, "As Santiago was learning the guitar, he saw himself as a self-conscious amateur; surprisingly, he still often speaks of a lack of confidence in his playing."
- That sentence has always been an awkward construction. I've replaced it with your version.
- Discography. I could be missing something about WP music article style here, but having each subsection start with "With..." seems to imply that Santiago was a guest who recorded with the listed groups, and that's only true of Frank Black. Disregard my take if this is the dominant WP style, but I would do one of two things instead: "Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "The Martinis," or "As a member of the Pixies," "With Frank Black," and "As a member of the The Martinis."
- Done Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out.
- Discography. Could you distinguish between which projects he was a sideman on, which he composed, and/or which he was the headlining act? In particular, how is he billed on the Weeds soundtrack—simply as composer, or is he also the artist?
- Notes. The citation punctuation seems inconsistent in its use of periods at the end of items.
- Hopefully I've addressed this.
- Hmm, not sure what you did, because I still see inconsistency. This is why I don't like cite templates; some of them show periods (full stops?) at the end of each citation, but others don't. The resulting Notes sections then display an inconsistent format. Not sure what to say about this. I find it irritating, but it's not that big a deal, I guess. But if it was me, I'd forego the different cite templates and simply write out the footnotes as they should be, because that gives you complete control over how they appear. BTW, I just added a period to the end of the first book reference; the second one had one, but the first one didn't. Then I realized that the books were in quotes (like articles) instead of in italics, so I fixed that, and then I saw that the formats weren't the same for both books, so I unified them as per WP:CITE#HOW. The only thing missing is the city where the books were published, so you may want to add that per Harvard referencing style for books.
- I'm guessing you mean the book references? I've seen many FAs that have a period at the end of a web reference, but not a book one. I do use {{cite web}} though, as it's incredibly helpful. I'll look up the city.
- Hmm, not sure what you did, because I still see inconsistency. This is why I don't like cite templates; some of them show periods (full stops?) at the end of each citation, but others don't. The resulting Notes sections then display an inconsistent format. Not sure what to say about this. I find it irritating, but it's not that big a deal, I guess. But if it was me, I'd forego the different cite templates and simply write out the footnotes as they should be, because that gives you complete control over how they appear. BTW, I just added a period to the end of the first book reference; the second one had one, but the first one didn't. Then I realized that the books were in quotes (like articles) instead of in italics, so I fixed that, and then I saw that the formats weren't the same for both books, so I unified them as per WP:CITE#HOW. The only thing missing is the city where the books were published, so you may want to add that per Harvard referencing style for books.
- Hopefully I've addressed this.
- In the lead, there are several years mentioned, but no years are given to place the Pixies heyday. It's a little strange to be introduced to Santiago in the first sentence and be told he's best known as being part of the Pixies, then be told they broke up in 1993 without having been told when they were playing in the first place. Perhaps this is as simple as adding "in the late 1980s and early 1990s" to the first sentence, or perhaps there's a better way to do this. But I think it's pretty important to place the era of Santiago's best known music in the first sentence.
- Good work! --Melty girl (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for such a thorough review. I'll be working on your detailed comments throughout the week. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for writing a great article—it was fun to read. --Melty girl (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for such a thorough review. I'll be working on your detailed comments throughout the week. CloudNine (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
Self nomination: I've been working on this article since January and it has been GA since August 4. I've done further work and carried out suggested fixes, and having received positive feedback from the GA reviewer regarding the article's FA potential ([63]), I feel that it now meets FA criteria. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
CommentsSupport
I’d merge the first two paragraphs in the lead.- I think these should be kept seperate. The first paragraph is giving the fundamental details of the town at present and the second is explaining the history; I think their subjects are too disparate to merge. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I tend to dislike short paragraphs. However, I've just had a look through for other featured UK towns/cities, and their leads seem similar to yours, so I can't really argue. Sheffield and Sheerness both exhibit the pattern of one para on location, and then one or two on history and development. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think these should be kept seperate. The first paragraph is giving the fundamental details of the town at present and the second is explaining the history; I think their subjects are too disparate to merge. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
“It was during the 1960s that things began to decline” is a bit informal. How about “Blyth entered a period of decline in the 1960s”? That paragraph needs expansion and explanation – that’s a lot of industries that went downhill with no reason given (and, yes, I know it was all part of the industrial decline, but other readers might not)- Done I've reworded the first bit and explained briefly the closures of the shipyards and the mines, i'm hoping this is what you had in mind. The closure of the railway i'm not sure about; I know the station was closed by Beeching but I don't know for sure if the closure of the line was directly related to this or not, so i've left it as it was. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- This might be of interest on the railway issue (look for "Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway" about a third of the way down).
- Thanks for that, but the line being discussed by Denis Murphy is the main line of the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway which runs past the outskirts of Blyth. The line which actually ran into the town centre was a branch line which terminated at Blyth station for passengers and continued in a loop, rejoining the main line, for freight. It's this particular line that, while i've found some info on it, I can't find anything to say why the whole thing was shut down and removed. It was probably a combination of Beeching and the decline of the coal industry, but like I say I don't know for sure. Anyway, I have been meaning to expand the Transport links section with more rail info so this link should come in handy for that, cheers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- This might be of interest on the railway issue (look for "Ashington, Blyth and Tyne Railway" about a third of the way down).
Could you explain or wikilink Trust port?- Done Explained. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
“while Indonesia and Malaysia are both monthly” how about “services to…are both monthly”, otherwise it implies a periodic status for those countries.- Done I've used “connection” rather than “services” though, as this is how it's described in the ref. Dbam Talk/Contributions 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I’d avoid “in recent times”, for vagueness.- I'd agree with this if “in recent times” was by itself, but the following text gives the dates of the various projects and therefore the time-scale to which “in recent times” refers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to say I don't like it, but as you say, the context is given later. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've removed “in recent times” now, since it was picked up on by a second editor. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd have to say I don't like it, but as you say, the context is given later. J.Winklethorpe talk 07:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd agree with this if “in recent times” was by itself, but the following text gives the dates of the various projects and therefore the time-scale to which “in recent times” refers. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Was there any public opposition to these energy projects? If it was notable, then a mention would be appropriate.“They also assist with the development and integration of large- and small-scale renewables into the energy mix” sounds like press copy to me; it doesn’t really tell me what they do. Umm, a read of the citation explains why it reads like press copy…- Done Yeah, I don't really know what that means myself, to be honest -- I think at the time I was just trying to beef up the article. Anyway, I've cut it down to just the basics. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to be mean to Blyth Spartans, but I personally wouldn’t class them as “one of England's best-known non-league football clubs”. You’ve got a good ref for their FA cup fame; I think a similar ref is required for this.- Done Reworded. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You’ve got “also based in Blyth are” and then a single sentence paragraph starting “Other sports teams based in Blyth”. I think merging the two para’s might be a way forward.Could “interactive water features” be changed to something that describes what’s actually there?- Done Reworded. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
If you have a ref for the “generally considered” in “the four chimneys of Blyth Power Station were generally considered to be Blyth's most notable landmark”, that would be good.- Done I didn't have a ref for that specific statement so i've reworded it and used an existing ref. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Are the port, which is apparantly still active, and the Quayside, which is now quiet, different places? If so, some note to distinguish them would help.- Done "The port" more refers to the town of Blyth as a port rather than the port being a specific place within the town, the Quayside, on the other hand, is a specific place so i've reworded that section to make that clearer. Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free to disagree with any of the above. J.Winklethorpe talk 22:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- Support—I hope this standard of writing will continue in English city FACs. But:
- Done"Between the 12th and 18th centuries, records show ...", then a reference. Just "records" is not worth saying; either make the claim (with the reference) or tell us what type of records.
- Done"by 1855, 250,000 tons"—See MOS on this: use words for "a quarter of a million".
- Done"the filling-in of"—Why the hyphen?
- Would be easier on our readers with a few more commas: "At this time it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast with five dry docks and four building slipways." Try "At this time, it boasted one of the largest shipbuilding yards on the North East coast, with five dry docks and four building slipways." Audit throughout. I see good uses of commas further on in "By 1930,..."
- DoneLaboured thematic equative: "It was during the 1960s that Blyth entered a period of steep decline." Just "During the 1960s, Blyth ...". Tony (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Epbr123 15:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I do think this is a very good article, but I have a few concerns:
- "Blyth is also home to the non-League football club Blyth Spartans, famed for their giant-killing feats in the FA Cup". "Giant-killing feats" is not very encyclopedic terminology, and to the less knowledgable or impaired, possibly very misleading. Done
- "These industries have largely vanished, but the port still thrives, with the shipment of paper and pulp from Scandinavia for the newspaper industries of England and Scotland." Is it just England and Scotland, or the the United Kingdom? - there's no source so I can't verify it. Done
- The third paragraph contains some questionable statements about the local shopping centre's role in regeneration. Done That The Quayside is "peaceful" could be a POV term, is there a source to support this? Done
- I've elaborated to say why the shopping centre helped revitalise the town and included a ref in the appropriate section. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it possible to add the distance from and direction to London in the infobox? (by adding |london_distance= ) Done
- Is there anything on the built environment, land use and topography of the local area which could be included regarding the Geography of Blyth? Doing...
- I personally would like to see the article more closely matching with the WP:UKCITIES standard, though wouldn't oppose the article if it did not. Done -- Jza84 · (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Blyth is also home to the non-League football club Blyth Spartans, famed for their giant-killing feats in the FA Cup". "Giant-killing feats" is not very encyclopedic terminology, and to the less knowledgable or impaired, possibly very misleading.
- Comments:
- Done"The land was bought by Matthew White and his brother-in-law Richard Ridley, with accumulated fortunes from town-based trades." What is a "town-based trade"?
- This was a left-over from the article's stub days and probably not something I would have put if i'd written that sentence from scratch. I don't know how they made their money and the ref doesn't elaborate on it, so I've removed it. I'll see if I can find out, though. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done"Things got worse during the Napoleonic Wars ..." seems a bit too colloquial. More importantly, the article seems to be suggesting that it was the salt tax that forced the salt trade in Blyth into decline. But it wasn't a local tax, and salt was still produced in other parts of the country. Was it simply too expensive producing salt from the salt pans?
- I don't see how the tax being local or otherwise is relevent. It just seems to have been the primary factor in the decline of Blyth's salt trade and the ref I have doesn't go into any further detail. A couple of articles i've found about Seaton Sluice also cite the tax as the reason for the industry's demise there. I've reworded the "Things got worse..." bit. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd would suggest that it's relevant because I don't think that it caused the Middlewich salt industry to collapse for instance. What was different about Blyth's salt industry? --Malleus Fatuarum 00:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how the tax being local or otherwise is relevent. It just seems to have been the primary factor in the decline of Blyth's salt trade and the ref I have doesn't go into any further detail. A couple of articles i've found about Seaton Sluice also cite the tax as the reason for the industry's demise there. I've reworded the "Things got worse..." bit. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI'd prefer to see the paragraph third from the end in the History section, about Blyth's civic history, in a separate Governance section, along with the political representation information given in the Government and demographics section, as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
- DoneI don't see the logic of having a section that combines Government and demographics. I'd prefer to see separate Governance and Demography sections, again as per the WP:UKCITIES guidelines.
- A few awkward uses of English, for instance "... the last passenger train departed Blyth on the 12 August."
- Is it the "the" before the date you're referring to here? Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's the phrase "departed Blyth". What about "left Blyth on", or at least "departed from Blyth"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malleus Fatuarum (talk • contribs) 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it the "the" before the date you're referring to here? Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done"Blyth once boasted four cinemas ..." One of my pet hates. Why is having four cinemas something to boast about? I'm not sure I see the benefit either of a list of cinemas that closed down 40 years ago.
- I've reworded that first bit. As for actually having the list in the first place, well I think it is important to say that Blyth has no cinemas, since they are a major form of entertainment that one could reasonably expect to find in a town like Blyth. I think it's important to also explain that Blyth at one time did have several cinemas, rather than possibly giving the impression the there have never been any in the town. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done"It has recently undergone a £602,000 regeneration project ...". "Recently" is a term that will age. When was the project carried out? In 2007? How can anything "undergo a regeneration project" anyway?
- "Prior to their demolition ..." is mistakenly formal. "Before their demolition ..."? Done Dabomb87 12:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done""Two were 167 metres (548 ft) high and the other two were 137 metres (449 ft) high and they were visible for many miles". Trying to cram too much into one sentence.
- I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I've replaced that first "and" with a comma. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done"It will cost an estimated £2.4 million and it is hoped that work will commence in September 2007". It's now October. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & Support
- On the basis that the article meets current Featured article criteria to a sufficient degree.
Requests:
- "England's economy is the second largest in Europe and the fifth largest in the world." Please cite source of claim.
- "As part of the United Kingdom, England is a major centre of world economics." Please cite source of claim.
"tourism is the sixth largest industry in the UK, contributing 76 billion pounds to the economy" Please cite source of claim.
Request: "In recent times, several renewable energy projects have been established in Blyth. In 1992," Recent times is too relative; perhaps starting from 1992 or something more precise.
Done
- I've removed “in recent times” altogether. I personally felt it was OK since the following paras gave the dates of the various projects and therefore context. But as you're the second editor to point it out, it's probably best to remove it. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Learnedo 05:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Note: I've left a message at Learnedo's talk page regarding the above comments.Dbam Talk/Contributions 17:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Serious concern, the article relies heavily on keystothepast.info, which doesn't appear on the surface to be a reliable source. Can you please explain: "In the list of references for the Keys to the Past records it may say that unpublished sources were used. Further information about these sources can found by contacting the relevant SMR/HER. It is important to note that the information on this website is not always up to date and that any commercial organisations should contact the relevant office to do an archaeological data search for desk based assessments or other commercial archaeological work. " and "Durham County Council and Northumberland County Council can accept no responsibility for any inaccuracy contained therein." Also, if the two items in See also are important enough to be included, why can't they be worked into the text of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- The source is fine which is a reason to pass many things. Like three external link is fine so we should let that pass??? Leranedo 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd like to echo Sandy's concern about that reference. It's partly a matter of balance: there's a host of web references, and probably too many from the "Keys to the past" (supported by a lottery syndicate, I see). That site provides contact numbers for the librarians of three local organisations, almost to underline the proviso that Sandy reproduced above concerning verifiability. Is it going to be hard to gain access to a properly researched local history through those professionals? If just a few references from the suspect site were changed into authoritative ones, readers would at least know where to go for more information on some of the statements made. The only two books listed concern images. Tony (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC) PS The writing has improved significantly. Thanks.
- These are nothing new that the two previous has stated. I've seen this lack balance before and others have voted support on those articles. I've seen far worse, and this article is currently considered acceptable, and thus I maintain my pass vote. Of course the concerns should be dealt with but the main issue is that of feasibility. Leranedo 03:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- "The only two books listed concern images." 79 references is better than most. Some don't even have book sources, and that astounds me. Leranedo 03:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and before I forget, the lack of balance may point to potential NPOV issues, but again, it's better most, and I like to fulfill my pass quota, so onlookers do not falsely assume I oppose every single article without just cause. Leranedo 03:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Announcing that you have a "pass quota", which I take to mean that you support a given number of articles, regardless of their quality, may cause you a larger problem with onlookers. Feel free to oppose as you see fit. I'd rather have an editor who votes his or her conviction, even if that means never supporting. Pagrashtak 04:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I believe that the concern expressed above concerning the reliability of one of the sources used is not well-founded, and results from misinterpreting a standard disclaimer. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Follow-up comment I've supported above; I'd consider "keys to the past" a reliable source. It's a joint venture by two councils, and the teams from those councils running it will be professional archeologists (a normal practice: all UK councils have responsibilities for archeology in their area). The councils will keep archives of archeological records, which will be the "unpublished sources" referred to. The UK planning process can require archeological investigations (usually for any mid-size development, or even small ones in archeologically sensitive areas), and commercial organisations will usually provide those investigations. The disclaimer will simply be usual practice for an organisation that prefers not to be sued. The "lottery syndicate" is actually government-controlled funding for "good causes", funded by a levy on the UK National Lottery. They splatter money about like water for "worthy" projects such as that website. I'll leave it to Dbam to comment on whether a decent history based on those records has been written, but I wouldn't be shocked to find that it hasn't. I see the point about balance of sources, but as I don't mistrust the site, I don't judge it to be a problem. J.Winklethorpe talk 00:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- All I can say is that i've used the best sources i've been able to find. Blyth's a pretty unremarkable town, so finding any detailed information on it isn't all that easy—Keys to the Past, however, has quite a bit of specific info and is cited accordingly. But I don't think the article relies heavily on it, as it's only used in one paragraph, it's just that KttP happens to keep individual bits of info on seperate pages, so requires several citations to cover it all. As for the reliability of the site, I totally agree with the two preceding comments. Regarding Tony1's apparent concern over the book sources, I'm not sure how being image-based makes the info they contain any less reliable. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think Tony1's concern was that lack of book sources possibly means the article isn't comprehensive. Have you checked your local library for any further info that could be added? Epbr123 22:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'll be visiting Blyth very soon, so i'll pop in and have a look while i'm there. Dbam Talk/Contributions 13:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: I'm still working on this FAC, but due to real-life stuff, i'll be unable to respond to further comments, requests or queries until Saturday, 10 November, sorry. Dbam Talk/Contributions 11:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
I wrote this article from scratch, got it on DYK?, submitted to a peer review, got practically no response, took it to GA status and now I feel it is good enough to be a featured article. This is my first FAC, and I am ready and willing to make changes based upon the suggestions of reviewers. Thanks in advance for any comments. J Milburn 20:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment "Support for Midnight Syndicate's music as a role-playing aid grew so much that the band decided to set up stalls at gaming conventions, and it was at the first one that Midnight Syndicate was approached by Wizards of the Coast and asked if they would be interested in recording an official soundtrack, which they said they would be.[8][9]" - I find this sentence a bit of a mouthful, and feel it would benefit from being split into two sentences. LuciferMorgan 20:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"The now defunct Living Dead Girls ezine said that music within the album was more diverse than music on Midnight Syndicate's earlier albums, allowing Dungeons & Dragons to display for the first time the musical diversity Midnight Syndicate were capable of.[24]" - Could whatever the ezine said be put in quotations, and the name of the reviewer in question given? LuciferMorgan 20:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Although I do not know the name of the author, so I have referred to them as 'an unnamed writer'. J Milburn 21:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments
- For FA, I'd lose the red links, either create stubs or unwikify, just for aesthetics.
- Done Or done some. I'll knock up some stubs for the albums later. J Milburn 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks, and their removal is not a requirement for FA status. On the other hand, if a term is not adequately defined in the article, then the redlink can be stubbified or a definition provided in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Douglas said that writing the album came very naturally.[8] The word "very" is not used in the source, I would remove it. Ooops, a little farther down: Douglas said that, for him, instrument choice came naturally and that "sounds and sometimes even melodies fall in line themselves".[8] So I think these two statements are a bit redundant, especially being so close in proximity to each other.
- Not done It does use the word 'very'. To quote the source- "Not only were we fans of the game but Dungeons & Dragons sessions often provided inspiration for the music on some of our other discs. The writing for the D&D disc came very natural and working with the developers at Wizards of the Coast was great." The second part is in reference to instrument choice specifically- later in the interview, Douglas says that "I think instrument choice comes naturally. When you have a specific image or setting that you are writing towards, the sounds and sometimes even melodies fall in line themselves. Before I begin writing, I pick pictures and images that I feel reflect the world I'm trying to create musically and keep them near to me in the studio. I think that helps me maintain focus. For the Dungeons & Dragons disc I had the floor covered with D&D module covers and artwork." J Milburn 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good. Yes, I see it now. My bad. It was late and my eyes were crossed...:) ♫ Cricket02 16:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Years earlier, another album, First Quest: The Music[13] was released by Filmtrax and licensed by TSR, then owners of Dungeons and Dragons,[14] for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.[13] The flow is really broken up in this sentence with the references, and all refs need to come after a punctuation mark, i.e. #13 does not follow a punctuation mark. I think I would simply put refs 13 & 14 at the end of the sentence.
- Done Although I think the comma does belong. I brutally overuse commas, but then owners of Dungeons & Dragons is meant to be in parenthesis. J Milburn 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ironically, we had an edit conflict when I was removing my statement about the comma. I agree now, it does belong. ♫ Cricket02 16:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Midnight Syndicate typically create, according to Mario Mesquita Borges of All Music Guide, "darkly blended compositions", described both as "gloomy" and "brooding."[19 For better flow of this sentence, I think I would reverse the first two segments, i.e. According to ..., Midnight Syndicate typically create "darkly blended...
- Ref #20 is "currently not available"? Otherwise, I think refs look good.
- No idea. AMG hates me; it took me ages to get it to work in the first place. Could someone familiar with AMG please have a go? J Milburn 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I should have used links last night instead of ref #s because the order has changed. I looked at my last edit and this is the link that is not working right now, looks like its #21 now, hauntedattraction.com. Sorry about that. It might be a temporary glitch, or maybe you can find the original in web archives. ♫ Cricket02 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done I think- does that work for everyone else? I can link myself with the new URL, when I couldn't when I just tried with the old one. AMG I still can't work out, does anyone know what the problem is? J Milburn 22:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I should have used links last night instead of ref #s because the order has changed. I looked at my last edit and this is the link that is not working right now, looks like its #21 now, hauntedattraction.com. Sorry about that. It might be a temporary glitch, or maybe you can find the original in web archives. ♫ Cricket02 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- No idea. AMG hates me; it took me ages to get it to work in the first place. Could someone familiar with AMG please have a go? J Milburn 16:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Haunted Attraction Magazine - example of a cited publication that should be italicized. I fixed this one but need to check for more.
- Need to review throughout for un-needed commas that break up the flow.
- Overuse of commas is one of the problems with my writing. Maybe someone else should check that- I'll get in contact with the league of copyeditors. J Milburn 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- See also WP:MOS#Quotation_marks and review throughout. (I fixed a few within the Musical Style section as an example).
- Done That's something I didn't know. J Milburn 22:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- A Serial comma is used at times, and at other times not. Either way is correct, so just choose one way or the other for consistency.
- Not required but a sound sample or two may be useful to enhance sourced track discussion.
- Are there no additional categories this album can be placed in? Maybe have a look in Category:Albums and see if it fits in other places.
Okay, I think that's all I can find for now. Great work so far. To all concerned and for the record, I will be gone for about a week, but I will be back for another look. ♫ Cricket02 07:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- SUPPORT - all issues have been addressed and I feel this article meets FA criteria. ♫ Cricket02 06:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & Support
- On the basis it's readable. Learnedo 05:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fair length. Fair amount of references. Don't think there's much more to say about the album. Support. (Ibaranoff24 13:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
After much hard work, I finally think I got this article to FA status. I've added numerous sections, added tons of sources. The article is visually pleasing to the eye. It follows all the formats. Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah. Well, anyway...I hope it made it. cowbellcity45 talk 22:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Meets the criteria, as you said pleasing to the eye, interesting, and very well written overall. --Shahid • Talk2me 16:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good. Well written. sohmc 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment: It's OK, but needs close scrutiny, preferably by someone who's fresh to the text.
- I wonder who does own the copyright of the map.
- "U.S.S Pinkerton"—dot missing. Done Dabomb87 02:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ambiguous: "After finishing the record, the label's fear was put to rest that the band would be a flash in the pan after the success of the "Buddy Holly" video."
- a "very brave record,' but worried "what sort of light does this put the band in? I could have been interpreted as them being a disposable pop band.'"—floating quote mark?
- The label overall was pleased with the record and felt "no one's going to be disappointed" with the album. Why not cite the author of this phrase? Done
- Geffen spokesman Dennis Dennehy, defended the title stating "to Weezer, Pinkerton is a character in Puccini's opera Madame Butterfly...It was not meant to be aimed at any sort of corporate entity."—Are the ellipsis dots yours or in the original. Presuming that they're yours, please see MOS on spacing. Check others, too. MOS breach concerning the final punctuation, here and elsewhere. Tony (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Cool, Well-written. FA quality.--Tamás Kádár 16:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Remark
- "most of them after a painful leg surgery; as a result, they were written in first-position on his guitar's fretboard so" I never seen many articles use semi-colon; perhaps rephrase the section. Learnedo 05:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Minor MOS fixing needed throughout, and some citations are missing info, sample edits left. [64] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Prose is a little jerky in some places, but nothing too serious. Good work. JimmyBlackwing 13:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. References and writing quality both look good. (Ibaranoff24 13:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC))
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
This article, about one of the lesser-known but most brutal pirates of the Golden Age of Piracy has recently been labelled as a good article. However, my intent has always been to take it on to FA. Given the length of the article, the fact it (to my eyes) meets all the featured article criteria, and has been through some pretty extensive checking, I would like to submit it to be a featured article. It's well written, particularly now it's been rigorously copyedited by User:Malleus Fatuarum and User:Maralia. It's fully referenced. All pictures are legit to the best of my knowledge. It's comprehensive without going "overboard" (pirate pun there), bearing in mind Low's piratical career only lasted 3 years tops. Peer review (which didn't provide any human advice) can be found here. Let me know what you think! Neil ム 09:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
- An images caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence. Done - now consistent
- There is incorrect dash usage in the infobox and footnotes. Done, I think - if it's still not correct, please do tell me what is incorrect
- All web references need the author, publisher and publishing date, if known. Done
- Full dates in the footnotes need linking. Done - they were all linked already (I can't see one that isn't, unless you mean the American Weekly Mercury one, which is a date range (6 - 13 June 1723) and should not be wikilinked)
- Non-breaking spaces should be places between numbers and units. Done
- Imperial measurements should be accompanied by the metric equivalent in brackets, and vice versa. Done
- Text should not be sandwiched between two adjacent images, as in the Influence section. Done
- "The Victoria's Portuguese captain allowed a bag containing approximately 11,000 gold moidores (worth at the time around £15,000)" - is that £15,000 in today's money? Done - it says "at the time" - I am unsure how to say it in any clearer a manner
- "an 80-ton schooner" - is that a long ton or short ton? Done - references say "ton", as opposed to "tonne", and given the period and usage, it's long ton - first use wikilinked to inform reader
- A bit more copyediting needed, for example:
- "Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719, he became a pirate two years later" - either "following" or "two years later" is redundant. Done
- "operating off the coasts of New England, the Azores, and in the Caribbean" - I think an "and" is needed between "New England" and "the Azores". Done
- "a reputation for violently torturing his victims" - all torture is violent Done - no it isn't!
- "Low led the twelve man gang – which included Francis Farrington Spriggs – in taking over a small sloop off the coast of Rhode Island, killing one man, and officially turned pirate determined "to go in her, make a black Flag and declare War against all the World."" - difficult to follow. And is it possible for someone to officially turn pirate? Done - split into two sentences. It's not needed so removed, but technically you would officially becomes a pirate in the eyes of the law once an act of piracy has been committed.
- "a bounty was placed on his head, and Low headed for the Azores" - repetition of "head" Done
- "are still being combed by treasure hunters looking for treasure in the ships he sank." - repetition Done
- "Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719, he became a pirate two years later" - either "following" or "two years later" is redundant.
- An images caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
Epbr123 19:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions! Dones / not dones added. Neil ム 21:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some more:
- "In a later trial on 10 July 1723 for a number of Low's crew" - "later" is redundant, "during" might be better than "in" Done
- "Harris returned to the UK, and was hanged at Wapping." - the UK didn't exist at the time Done (doh)
- "intending them to starve to death slowly" - I think the "slowly" is redundant Done
- "his crew refused to carry out his orders to torture the fisherman" - it should either be "a fisherman" or "the fishermen" Done, typo fixed
- "newly-captured ship" - -ly words don't usually need to be hyphenated as it's clear which two words belong together Done
- "he attacked thirteen New England fishing vessels" - 13 Done
- Elsewhere states, "mounting 14 guns on her" - the decision whether to use numerals or words should be consistent. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Johnson – considered to be Daniel Defoe" - maybe best to include the "Charles" Done
- "silk", "theft", burglary", "cannon", "postage stamp", "torture", "17th century", "seaweed" and "barnacles" don't need linking Done - I've delinked a few of these, but some really should be linked.
- None of those words adds context. A link to "theft" will not help readers understand this article better. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- A pipelink to "theft" will help readers understand what the archaic term "thievery" means (Word usage that may be confusing to a non-native speaker). Ditto "burglary", which is not a widely-used word in many English speaking countries. Barnacles and seaweed ought to be linked - the link you give says "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully". Plus the article has a reasonable "link density" at present. Neil ム 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- None of those words adds context. A link to "theft" will not help readers understand this article better. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Check that linked words are linked at their first occurence, eg. "Edward Teach", "cutlass" Done
- Some ship names need italicising Done - one use missed and fixed
- The Arthur Conan Doyle part of the lead should be mentioned in the body of the article. Done - why?
- The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, therefore, there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't in the body. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Neil ム 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, therefore, there shouldn't be anything in the lead which isn't in the body. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Does Articles belong as a subsection of Flags? Done - nope
- Some ref titles and the External links section have improper dash usage. Done - it might be better if you just fix this yourself, as it looks fine to me. If the title of a document or website doesn't use an em or en dash, I wouldn't use one when stating the title.
- The dashes do need fixing. Wikipedia's formatting style has to be used, rather than the other website's. For the same reason, the upper case text needs to also be removed from some refs. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Done. Neil ム 09:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The dashes do need fixing. Wikipedia's formatting style has to be used, rather than the other website's. For the same reason, the upper case text needs to also be removed from some refs. Epbr123 09:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- "In a later trial on 10 July 1723 for a number of Low's crew" - "later" is redundant, "during" might be better than "in"
Epbr123 00:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Responded. Neil ム 08:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Forgot to say: Support as nominator. Neil ム 11:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Support Epbr123 12:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very interesting article, comprehensive and well-written. Karanacs 17:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by Karanacs
Here are a few things that need to be fixed
Lead prose issues -- a) "in around" -> pick one, please; b)"Following the death of his wife during childbirth in late 1719 he became a pirate two years later" doesn't flow well at all Done - first fixed (but not below, see your 4th point). Second one flows if you reinstate the comma you omitted. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Need a citation directly after quote in second sentence (I assume the following sentence's citation covers that, but it needs to be duplicated for quotations) Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)The two paragraphs in first section are both very short and could be combined into one Done - no, they're fine. One paragraph looked ugly, and was too long. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are five sentences total in those 2 paragraphs. I think if you take the first 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, then add the second paragraph, and put the sentence about his brother last, you would have a solid single paragraph. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The paragraph would be too long. Those are long sentences. Neil ☎ 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I very much disagree with you - it would be about the same as the last paragraph in Life in Bost section. Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I just realised when you said "first section", you meant the "early life" section - I assumed you meant the introduction. Done Neil ☎ 17:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think I just realised when you said "first section", you meant the "early life" section - I assumed you meant the introduction.
- I very much disagree with you - it would be about the same as the last paragraph in Life in Bost section. Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The paragraph would be too long. Those are long sentences. Neil ☎ 22:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- There are five sentences total in those 2 paragraphs. I think if you take the first 2 sentences of the 1st paragraph, then add the second paragraph, and put the sentence about his brother last, you would have a solid single paragraph. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"in around" is not proper grammar, and is used within the body of the article as well as in the lead. Please fix with an alternate phrase. Done Neil ☎ 10:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)The article says "Boston" 3 times in one and a half sentences in first paragraph of Life in Boston section; I would rewrite the second sentence to say "On August 12, 1714, he married Eliza Marble at the First Church of Boston." Done Maralia 19:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Rather than "labour" I would say childbirth; it is a more common phrase Done Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)- Need a nonbreaking space between numbers and their qualifiers (three years, twelve men); use {{nowrap}} or & nbsp; Done - that's only for digit numbers and units of measurement (eg 6 cm) according to the MOS. Neil ☎ 21:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the MOS for dates and numbers, the non-breaking space applies to "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space" Although the examples use kg/yds/etc, nowhere does it say that it applies only to units. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Numerical" means e.g. "12", not "twelve". Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the MOS for dates and numbers, the non-breaking space applies to "compound items in which numerical and non-numerical elements are separated by a space" Although the examples use kg/yds/etc, nowhere does it say that it applies only to units. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
"came back aboard hungry" doesn't sound quite right; how about "he reboarded the ship searching for food?" Done, but not "searching for food", which the reference doesn't say he did, it says he was hungry. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)month and date combinations should be wikilinked (10 July and 12 July) Done No they should not - see WP:MOS and Epr123's point above. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the MOS for Wikilinks, you should always wikilink a month/day combination so that the user's preferences will dictate how it is displayed (as 10 October or October 10, for example). Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but the above guy insisted it wasn't the case. Anyway, Done Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I know, but the above guy insisted it wasn't the case. Anyway,
- According to the MOS for Wikilinks, you should always wikilink a month/day combination so that the user's preferences will dictate how it is displayed (as 10 October or October 10, for example). Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is it necessary to mention in this article that Charles Johnson might be Daniel Defoe? Done - why should it not be? Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it didn't add anything to the text, and was a little distracting. The article is not about DeFoe or Charles Johnson, and therefore I wouldn't include the detail about them. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think it adds context and interest to the prose, and belongs there. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- In my opinion, it didn't add anything to the text, and was a little distracting. The article is not about DeFoe or Charles Johnson, and therefore I wouldn't include the detail about them. Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Boston News-Letter should be italicized as it is a newspaper {{done}} Maralia 19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Do not include articles in the See also section that have been wikilinked in the article; that would remove the first two; I also don't think you need the History of Boston in the list Done - Privateer removed, but see Epr123's comments above. The Piracy in the Caribbean link in the text is piped. Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)Not all of your citations have publishers listed Done Neil ☎ 21:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not done. See, for example, 13, 19, 27 and 29 Karanacs 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Karanacs 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- 13, 19 and 29, the publisher is the author (those are websites). 27 the publisher is Project Gutenberg as stated. Please actually check the references. Neil ☎ 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- You still need to have the publisher specified. For example, in reference 13, the publisher would either be Rob Ossian's Pirate Cove or thepirateking.com (and how reliable a source is that, anyway?). Karanacs 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Okay, I'll fix that now. Ossian is reliable, he's been cited all over the place and used by the History Channel among others as a pirate expert (see [65]). Neil ☎ 17:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was one more citation that needed a publisher. It was one of the last ones, called "Pirates Site", and then I think you'll be done with that nitpicky task ;) Karanacs 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Avast, ye pernicious harridan ;) Done. Neil ☎ 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- There was one more citation that needed a publisher. It was one of the last ones, called "Pirates Site", and then I think you'll be done with that nitpicky task ;) Karanacs 17:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments: I see there've been many comments and alterations since I read this article, so feel free to ignore objections that have been met in the mean time.
- In biographies the birth and death dates are usually put in brackets behind the name instead of in the lead's prose. Done
- "A thief and a scoundrel from a young age, he was born into poverty in Westminster, London around 1690 and moved" This is one of those inverted compound sentences that doesn't work. The clause before the comma is no bearing on his birth and so they shouldn't be linked together. Besides, it's probably better to use that description after you've described his birth so you don't label him as a scum baby. Done (although he may have been a scum baby!)
- Why is his birthdate in the 'Early life' section less specific than the one in the lead? Done
- "A brother was hanged at Tyburn for "thievery"." Was that one of his brothers or a monk/priest? What is the relevence to his criminal exploits? Sentence seems a bit disjointed from the rest of the text. Done, sort of - clarified it was a brother as in relative. I think there's relevance in that it suggests his family were all impoverished criminals.
- What was the birthdate of his deceased son? Done - don't know, it is not in any of my resources.
- "The loss of his wife had a profound affect on Low" That should be effect. (affect is verb, effect is noun) Done
- You might want to briefly mention why Francis Farrington Spriggs is worth mentioning by name when the rest of the gang wasn't. Done - it's because he subsequently became a famous pirate in his own right
- "Acquiring a taste for cruelty, Low taught Spriggs a torture technique which involved tying a victim's hands with rope between their fingers and setting them alight, burning their flesh down to the bones." When you teach somebody that, you aren't just acquiring a taste for cruelty, you already have it. Probably needs rephrasing. Done
- "no quarter would be given if any resisted"? Quarter as in shelter or money. To who, the captives or the pirates? Done - neither money nor shelter - "no quarter" means no mercy (it's a fairly standard phrase). I have amended to "mercy", which is probably less evocative, but fine.
- "Remaining off the coast of North America, a fishing boat was taken off Block Island." Who was remaining off the coast of NA? The fishing boat or Low? If it was Low, you should include a grammatical subject. Done reworded
- How can Low be both never heard from again and be hanged in Martinique? Done - the section explains that there are conflicting accounts of Low's demise.
- In biographies the birth and death dates are usually put in brackets behind the name instead of in the lead's prose.
-- Mgm|(talk) 08:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Responded. Neil ☎ 10:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't see how my first objection was addressed... Also, I think I what the problem is with the death section. Some sentences that are attributed to particular sources are written in such a way they appear to be statements of fact. - Mgm|(talk) 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Argh, I just realised what happened - I had two identical editing windows open and put the years bit in the wrong one. I've now put the years of birth and death in brackets behind the name. I'll have a play with the death section. Neil ☎ 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- How is it now? Neil ☎ 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've done a final tweak on the death paragraphs. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Argh, I just realised what happened - I had two identical editing windows open and put the years bit in the wrong one. I've now put the years of birth and death in brackets behind the name. I'll have a play with the death section. Neil ☎ 10:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. - Mgm|(talk) 16:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No & Oppose
Pass & support
- On the new basis that there really isn't much anyone can do with it, unless they are the subject matter themselves, and that creative writing can be considered fancy. Learnedo 04:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- On the basis it does not fulfill #1d NPOV, regardless that having extensive biases makes for an interesting read. Learnedo 07:01, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- What biases? - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I will edit it later on today. In the meantime, please review the following in its entirely as you apparently do not understand it.
- What biases? - Mgm|(talk) 10:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial
- http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ Learnedo 21:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Leranedo/Learnedo, without a sample of why you consider the article POV, your "vote" can be considered invalid. Raul, the nominator, and all of us need to see your reasoning. The nominator can't address it if there is no example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- It reads like a story of a person who went from poverty to infamous fame, and as if we should feel pity for him, at least near the beginning. It wasn't encyclopedic. If someone who reads this cannot tell, I would be astounded. Some source are unreliable and apparently wrote for entertainment purposes and not for neutrality so the article can't really be balanced out. I would classify this as fiction for that is what it might as well be. Why are there "conflicting reports"? Because these are completely unreliable sources and I know I would want no knowledge than crap, false knowledge.
- I had made minor editing, and will change to support when it's adequate enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leranedo (talk • contribs) 04:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had to revert a couple of the changes, because you mutilated the grammar. And I mean really badly. Or should I say "you were said to have been described as having changed the grammar in an ill-mannered way"? Ah, I'm just joking - thank you for the edits. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh you're being silly. Two minor errors doesn't constitute mutilation, though I should have read it again however. Leranedo 21:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Leranedo, commenting at FAC without providing examples makes it very hard to evaluate your concerns. Please provide at least an example of unreliable sources. You can't just ask other editors to read your mind or take your word for it; we need something to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I had to revert a couple of the changes, because you mutilated the grammar. And I mean really badly. Or should I say "you were said to have been described as having changed the grammar in an ill-mannered way"? Ah, I'm just joking - thank you for the edits. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Comments. I left some notes and sample edits on minor WP:DASH issues, and you have some text terribly squeezed (on my browser) between an image and a quote in the "Early 1723" section. Can you pls doublecheck your sources on this?
- Pirates based in the Caribbean were chased from the seas by a new British Royal Navy squadron based at Port Royal, Jamaica and a smaller group of Spanish privateers, sailing from the Spanish Main, known as the Costa Garda (Coast Guard in English).
- Costa Garda isn't grammatical in Spanish and it doesn't mean Coast Guard; maybe those pirates didn't have correct grammatical Spanish, though. Google coughs up the term a lot wrt piracy (first on Wiki though), but it does not translate to Coast Guard as we think of it in English, so I'm wondering about your translation and whether it's original research or a source actually says that's the translation (if so, pls doublecheck other sources). First, garda isn't even a Spanish word; second, Coast Guard in Spanish is guardacostas or guardia de la costa or guardia de costas. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC) PS, if you can't figure that one out, the PR Project might have someone who speaks Spanish piracy. Maybe it's a Portuguese permutation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dashes Done Someone else can fix the dashes. Three different people have now told me to do three different things with them so they would support the FAC, citing different parts of the MOS. I am sick of messing about with dashes. If you want them fixed in a "just so" way, fix them yourself - I don't own the article. They look fine to me. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I read through the comments above and didn't find any incorrect dash advice; at any rate, I'll run through the article and fix any stragglers myself. If you have questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask me to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now done. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I read through the comments above and didn't find any incorrect dash advice; at any rate, I'll run through the article and fix any stragglers myself. If you have questions in the future, don't hesitate to ask me to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Resolution Done - what resolution are you at? I've checked it at everything, 1600x1200, 1440x900, 1200x760 down to 800x600 - it looks fine, although a little tight at 800x600, there are FAs that looks heaps worse at such a low resolution. It looked horrible at 640x480, but surely nobody runs their computer at that any more?
- Um, I use five computers :-) When I made the comment, I was on my old laptop, and I don't want to walk upstairs to check that now, but I'm sure it's not 640 x 480. I'll check several computers and fiddle; pls revert me if I change anything you don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm struggling as it looks fine on my compter - I've dropped the size of the image in the Early 1723 section, has that fixed it? You may need to play around with it yourself. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done subject to Sandy doing any rearranging as seen fit. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm struggling as it looks fine on my compter - I've dropped the size of the image in the Early 1723 section, has that fixed it? You may need to play around with it yourself. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Um, I use five computers :-) When I made the comment, I was on my old laptop, and I don't want to walk upstairs to check that now, but I'm sure it's not 640 x 480. I'll check several computers and fiddle; pls revert me if I change anything you don't like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Costa garda" Done - that should definitely be "Guarda". There are references for it being "Guarda del Costa" ([66], [67]). I think people may have got it mixed up because it tended to be simply referred to as the "Guarda". Fixed. Neil ☎ 15:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Good; but not done. I was noticing that Spanish bastardization coming up at Google thanks to Wiki :-) Um, it cannot be Guarda del Costa either, because it's La Costa (feminine)—I'm fluent, but not a native speaker. You may still need to get the Puerto Rican Project involved to straighten this out and help you find a highly reliable source relating to the piracy days, or let us know if it was just an example of poor Spanish grammar back in those days. I see the Gutenberg source at one point says guarda del costa, but later uses the grammatically correct guarda de costa; these are the kinds of issues that come up with translations (note that we are talking about a difference made by one or two letters here). Maybe you can punt this one and just use guarda de costa, since both of your sources use that, but I'd still recommend checking with the Puerto Rico Project, as they will know piracy stories. Sorry, but I have a big pet peeve about subtly incorrect original translations on Wiki, as they do tend to spread via Google, and we must get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've put it to "Guarda de Costa", I think unless the PR guys say otherwise, we're probably okay. Neil ☎ 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a better fix; I'm going to strike my comment now, since I'm confident that you'll sort this out with the Puerto Rican group if they are able to shed any light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The correct Spanish word for Coast Guard is guardacostas. A guardacostas is a vessel used to protect against smuggling.[68] However, Old Spanish may have indeed used guarda de costa. Joelito (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Awesome. Neil ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a better fix; I'm going to strike my comment now, since I'm confident that you'll sort this out with the Puerto Rican group if they are able to shed any light. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dashes
- Comment
Just a couple of image issues:Image:Lowstamp.jpg—I believe it's Wikipedia convention that non-free postage stamps should not be used to depict the subject of the stamp. (Cf. "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" from {{Non-free stamp}}.) I suggest removing.Image has been marked as orphaned.Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg—A photograph of a work of art like this inherits the original copyright. That is, davelandweb.com does not own the copyright of this image—I would guess Disney does.
- Part done - I've removed the stamp image - it didn't add much to the article. The Disney artwork image - could you clarify? Do I need to update the copyright statement, remove the image, should it be fair use, what? Neil ☎ 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright tag should be updated to indicate that the image is non-free. At that point, you'll need to either remove the image as replaceable, or, if you feel that only that particular image can serve its purpose, add rationale to the page stating why it can't be replaced by a free image. Pagrashtak 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. (btw, I've deleted the Lowstamp.jpg image), and have updated the rationale of the Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg - is this satisfactory? If you still don't think it's fair use, let me know, or just remove it yourself - I tihnk it adds something and is discussed within the section, but am open to argument. Neil ☎ 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- You'd probably get different opinions on the image, depending on the editor. I'm striking the comment, as the image page has the correct copyright information. Pagrashtak 14:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Okay. (btw, I've deleted the Lowstamp.jpg image), and have updated the rationale of the Image:Ned Low at PTOC.jpg - is this satisfactory? If you still don't think it's fair use, let me know, or just remove it yourself - I tihnk it adds something and is discussed within the section, but am open to argument. Neil ☎ 13:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The copyright tag should be updated to indicate that the image is non-free. At that point, you'll need to either remove the image as replaceable, or, if you feel that only that particular image can serve its purpose, add rationale to the page stating why it can't be replaced by a free image. Pagrashtak 13:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Part done - I've removed the stamp image - it didn't add much to the article. The Disney artwork image - could you clarify? Do I need to update the copyright statement, remove the image, should it be fair use, what? Neil ☎ 09:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support—Oh, this is excellent! Tony (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 16:20, 5 November 2007.
Self-nomination: I'm nominating (and obviously supporting) this article for featured article status because, after working on it for several months, I feel it's comprehensive, well-written and well-illustrated. I believe it meets all the FA criteria. MeegsC | Talk 22:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - normally I'd demand the small paragraphs get combined but...this is tricky here. Prose has good enough flow so as I don't notice it (which is good). A bit jargony in places but it is a very specialised topic and I think the judicious use of bluelinks has solved that. Well done. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Since the citations point to the publications in the "references" section, perhaps the latter should be moved up, so the publications are already named when they are mentioned in the citations. You might even be bold and put both together under one "References and notes" section as in Borobudur. - Mgm|(talk) 12:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done MeegsC | Talk 17:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- But please see additional comment lower in this section, left by another editor. MeegsC | Talk 16:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment The first paragraph of the lead is not at all inviting. It's very technical and doesn't really tell a casual reader anything. I'd suggest trying to make the lead more accessible and get into the "with the rachis running closer to the distal side of the feather" language further into the body. --Elliskev 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Please have another look and tell me if that's better! MeegsC | Talk 00:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Nice. The rest of the article looks good to me. It's well-written, cited, etc. I'll just assume it's accurate. :) --Elliskev 01:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! And thanks for taking the time to have a look. MeegsC | Talk 07:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support I can't think of anything significant I would add Jimfbleak 08:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment shouldn't it read "tertiaries" rather than "tertials"? 82.71.48.158 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nope! The term for those feathers is tertials—though presumably it comes from the same root word. MeegsC | Talk 15:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- MeegsC asked me to emphasise that I changed the order of reference sections to agree with longer-standing biology FAs, in case anyone objected. Books should be listed after specific references, and everything else should follow WP:ORDER. 82.71.48.158 15:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's nice you want to follow an established format, but what exactly is the logic behind it? It doesn't make sense to refer to a book that hasn't been mentioned in the text yet. I'd expect a list of books to come before the notes. Can anyone clarify the justification? --Mgm 87.212.40.234 02:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Looking at the WP:ORDER article, it appears that the only books that are to be listed above the notes section are those that weren't used in the construction of the article—that is, those that are suggested further reading only. Any references used for the article are to go in a "References" section after the notes. If this is going to cause problems in getting the article approved, I can certainly incorporate all of the references into the footnotes section, which would eliminate the need for separate categories altogether! :) MeegsC | Talk 15:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Reply: I will use the example from this Wikipedia article (entitled "Citing sources") to set up the reference and citation sections. Any quibbles with that order should be taken up on the talk page there! MeegsC | Talk 09:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Done MeegsC | Talk 09:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Well-written and well-cited. The illustrations are also very informative. Great work. Cheers, heyjude. 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great article. and very well cited!--Mike Searson 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think it meets the featured article criteria. This article was initially written by PirateDan. I stumbled upon it in July 2007, and I expanded and referenced the article thoroughly. It quickly passed GA, and after a few copyedits and readthroughs, I think it's ready for FA status. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Question: I'm sure this is easy to solve, the reference link to his birth and death dates only explains the date notation used, there is no reference for the actual dates. P.S. Since the books mentioned in "Further reading" were actually used as sources based on the notes, I've included them in the reference section. - Mgm|(talk) 19:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- MacGyverMagic, are you referring to a reference for his December 10, 1718 or a note indicating what his death date would be in New Style dates? Nishkid64 (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the difference in style. I'm just missing a source that confirms that was when he was born and when he died. It's a fact that can be questioned especially with the dating differences in that period, so you need a reference that tells us his birthday and death date. You probably have that reference already, so all you need to do is link it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oh. It was my intention to leave those references out because they were already covered (see ref 3, 4 and 61) later on in the article. In any case, I'll add a different source in the introduction. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with using the same source twice. I mentioned it, because we write in summary style and people who want to know the basics about Stede Bonnet, need to be able to read the lead section without having to hunt through the article for further sources. - Mgm|(talk) 08:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about the difference in style. I'm just missing a source that confirms that was when he was born and when he died. It's a fact that can be questioned especially with the dating differences in that period, so you need a reference that tells us his birthday and death date. You probably have that reference already, so all you need to do is link it. - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- A few more comments:
- "and engaged in some level of militia service" why not military?
- REPLY Militia would fit under the larger umbrella term of a military. Militias are armies of ordinary citizens, while militaries are more formal. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sounds fine.
- Somewhere halfway through their collaboration, Blackbeard acquired Queen Anne's Revenge. What did he sail before meeting Stede. Did Stede give command of his ship willingly?
- REPLY Not sure what Blackbeard sailed before meeting Bonnet. Charles Johnson's 1724 work A General History of Pyrates says that Blackbeard commanded a ship called the Guiney. Also, from Johnson's work, it seems that he took command of Bonnet's ship after asking Bonnet's crew. Blackbeard felt that Bonnet was not skillful enough to command his ship. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't need to be included, just to satisfy my curiosity and explain the background.
- "Bonnet accompanied his Blackbeard to South Carolina," Huh? I think 'his' is misplaced here. Either that or you're missing a word.
- REPLY Done Word removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- "King's Evidence" Since this is about the US, shouldn't that be State's Evidence?
- REPLY This all occurred prior to American independence, so the American colonies were under British rule. However, "turned state's evidence" should work just as fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not needed to change it. Your explanation makes sense. - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY This all occurred prior to American independence, so the American colonies were under British rule. However, "turned state's evidence" should work just as fine. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- "and modern scholars generally agree that the whole concept of pirates delivering prisoners to a watery grave via a narrow timber road is largely mythical." Unsourced claim.
- REPLY Done There's a lot of material that says it's mythical, but it's hard to find one that says "most modern scholars" believe it is mythical. So, I have reworded the sentence and referenced it to a notable pirate historian and scholar. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- "A plaque regarding Bonnet stands near Bonnet's Creek in Southport, North Carolina, on the Cape Fear River." I think 'regarding' is the wrong word here. Perhaps 'commemorating'.
- REPLY Done Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- "Bonnet's flag is featured in Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End as Capitaine Chevalle's flag." Unreferenced. - Mgm|(talk) 08:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY I thought this would come up in the FAC. I looked, but I could not find a reference for this statement. It's a known fact, but there seems to be sources for this statement. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not done - Mgm|(talk) 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- One of the guys at Brethren Court had The Pirates
CodeGuidelines and he told me Stede's flag is mentioned on page 10. I have appropriately sourced that now. I will also have the book myself in a week or so, so I can double-check that. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- One of the guys at Brethren Court had The Pirates
- "and engaged in some level of militia service" why not military?
- Comment: a few bits of prose that could do with looking at:
![[10]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3ADartmouth_College_campus_-_diagram_of_the_Green.jpg&diff=8185358&oldid=7997774){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
- In the lead, Incapacitated to lead his crew - this just doesn't look right to me. Is it grammatically correct? I'm not sure, but it could surely be replaced with something less... odd?
- REPLY Done Reworded to "Incapable of leading his crew..." Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Pre-criminal life: Allamby died before 1715, while the others survived; perhaps while the children is better?
- REPLY Done Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Collaboration with Blackbeard: At Nassau, Bonnet met for the first time Captain Benjamin Hornigold and Edward Teach, better known as Blackbeard, who played a large role in the remainder of Bonnet's life. - "for the first time" is clumsy there. Perhaps something like While at Nassau, Bonnet met Captain Benjamin Hornigold and Edward Teach for the first time; Teach, better known as Blackbeard, played a large role in the remainder of Bonnet's life.?
- REPLY Done Reworded to your version. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Same section - Blackbeard and Bonnet were blockading Charleston, and then the next sentence they fled. Why did they flee?
- REPLY Bad word choice. See my replacement here. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Resumption of pirate command - perhaps Resumption of piracy?
- REPLY Bonnet committed piracy while his ship was under Blackbeard's command. In this section, Bonnet regains command of his pirate ship. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Same section (actually, I should just go change this myself) - Topsail inlet should be Topsail Inlet (end of 1st para).Changed it myself.- Same section, last para - the careening was done by the prisoners; is it relevant that there were several black slaves among the prisoners?
- REPLY Done Removed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- wait out the hurricane season in this location -> wait out the hurricane season there
- REPLY Done Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Battle of Cape River Fear: in an effort to bracket the Royal James between them - bracket makes between them redundant.
- REPLY Done Removed "between them". Nishkid64 (talk) 18:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Same section - The battle was stalemated for the next five or six hours - urgh, stalemated. I know English allows pretty much anything to be used as a verb, but something like The battle was at a stalemate for... is simple enough, and doesn't induce the cringe!
- REPLY Done Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- What's a wiff knot? I did a search on WP and google, and couldn't find it anywhere else; can it be explained or something?
- REPLY Done Removed the word. I don't know how that got in there (it was probably in the text before I got to it; I assume PirateDan wrote that bit). Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Awww - I wanted to know what one was... I don't know if I can support without this vital information! :)
- REPLY
- Escape, recapture... - last para, sentence beginning with But; could just replace the full-stop (period) with a comma.
- REPLY Done Fixed. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Walking the plank: concept of pirates delivering prisoners to a watery grave via a narrow timber road is largely mythical.; mentioned in previous comments for lack of citation, but in this case cited for flowery language... a narrow timber road?
- REPLY Done Removed, reworded. Nishkid64 (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY
- Possessive apostrophes: this one I'm not sure about - what's in the article isn't wrong (Royal James' powder magazine or Tim Powers' On Stranger Tides), but I'm not sure if there's a WP policy on this. Perhaps a MOS guru can answer if it's ok as is, or should be Royal James's etc.
- WP:MOS#Possessives - It should be apostrophe and an S, unless it would make pronunciation difficult. Hence I've changed the "Royal James'" to "Royal James's. But I think "Powers's" is fiddly to say, so per MOS have left it as "Powers'". Neil ☎ 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
to It should be James's (fixed that), That's it for now. Carre 10:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the MOS link Neil - I knew there was a reason I used "s's" in my recent FA (even though my preference is without!). The only thing stopping my support is the reason for fleeing after the blockade. Either they just gave up the blockade, in which case they wouldn't have fled, I think; or, the RN or some heavily armed merchantmen turned up and ran (sailed) them off. It just looks a little strange to me to go from blockading to running for no apparent reason. I take it you don't disagree, else you would have said above, so you're just looking for the info or waiting for PirateDan to help out? Carre 09:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- REPLY Actually, I missed that comment entirely. However, I have now looked into the matter, and I have removed the word "fled". Essentially, Bonnet and Blackbeard set up the blockade, and then left Charleston to find a place to rest and refit their vessels. They went up the North Carolina coast, and settled at Topsail Inlet. It was there that Blackbeard lost the Queen Anne's Revenge. I hope that clarifies the situation, Carre. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Yes, that's a lot clearer - I figured it had to be one or the other. Incidentally, looking at Neil's current FAC, there was a comment there about whether "ton" is long ton or short ton - the same applies in this one somewhere, so you may want to consider wikilinking "ton" to "long ton" just to close that possible MoS issue. Carre 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Added the wikilink. Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I've checked all my points. Congratulations! - Mgm|(talk) 08:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, although I will be cross if this gets to FA before my piratey FAC which has been up for ages (sad face). I enjoyed this article, no referencing holes. This PD, full account of his trial might be interesting if you wished to expand that section. Neil ☎ 09:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably worth to add it as an external link. We want to be comprehensive, not complete. - Mgm|(talk) 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Added as an external link. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I've come to this rather late (and straight after Jack Sparrow too) so most of the wrinkles seem to have been ironed out. Nice piece, with enough anecdotal detail to bring Bonnet to life off the page. The only bit I really question is he was christened in a parish on 29 July 1688. Why mention a parish? Either specify it or delete it, I'd've thought. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have added the specific name of the parish. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 17:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Great article, really interesting! Just two issues:
- There are some MOS issues with the dashes. Please review WP:DASH and adjust the article accordingly.
- "Bonnet is alleged to have been one of the few pirates to make his prisoners walk the plank." Who alleges this?--Carabinieri 22:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's "alleged", because it's usually agreed upon by scholars that walking the plank was a Hollywood myth. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But who made the claim that Bonnet did actually make his prisoners walk the plank?--Carabinieri 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure who first made the claim. It's just been reported in a number of biographies of Bonnet. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- But who made the claim that Bonnet did actually make his prisoners walk the plank?--Carabinieri 09:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I also made some changes with dashes, but I'm not sure if I've made all the necessary fixes. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only remaining ones I could see were in the page ranges in references; I've just been through to change all those on your behalf. I also tweaked the Date of Birth/Death a bit to match MOS. Don't see any others. Carre 08:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's "alleged", because it's usually agreed upon by scholars that walking the plank was a Hollywood myth. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that its acceptable based on my very low standards.
"Bonnet set sail for Nassau," change to Nassau, Bahamas Learnedo 00:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
- previous FAC
- FARC
- Note for Raul: has already been on main page, update former featured articles if re-promoted.
This article was featured in 2004, then de-featured earlier this year. Its most notable failing at the time was the lack of citations. I have added quite a few from several sources, and have reworked a great deal of the prose. I believe it now meets the FA standards. Coemgenus 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's always nice to see articles restored. I fixed a few of the image captions (see samples and WP:MOS#Captions), but there are more to do. Can you ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes on the page ranges in the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, will do. Coemgenus 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great article. DrKiernan 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support --Mini@ 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Not yetCertain weakness of language remain.- Did James actually act as Lord High Admiral before the Restoration? if so, when?
- Done Fixed. According to Callow, he collected prize money from Royalist privateers while in France, but did not wield any true power as Lord High Admiral until after the Restoration. Coemgenus 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- "proved his gallantry upon the battlefield". See WP:PEACOCK; better to say which battle, and what he did.
- Done I replaced this language with a contemporary quote, cited in Miller. Coemgenus 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Fighting against his former comrades". The wars of the 1650's are confusing enough without being allusive. Is this the English navy, Turenne, or somebody else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done It was the French. I added a clarifying adjective. Coemgenus 20:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Cromwell died in September 1658. There had been much confusion after Cromwell's death in 1658; in 1660 Charles II was restored would be clearer.
- Done I've reworded it to illustrate the length of time between Cromwell's death and Charles's return. Coemgenus 20:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- He and his wife, Anne, became drawn to the Catholic faith, Treacly writing, and (about Anne Hyde) novel teaching.
- Done I've reworded and expanded the point, but it's not wrong. Miller, at pp. 58-59, says that James and Anne converted at the same time and that Anne pressured James to go public with his new faith. Callow, at 144-145, makes the same point. Coemgenus 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- James was forced to consent to his daughter Mary's marriage to the Protestant Prince of Orange Really, now? This sentence would be improved by saying who "forced" the heir to the throne; and vastly improved by a neutral source. Somehow Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who Stole Their Father's Crown does not reassure this reader's qualms about POV. Please do not cite a polemic as though it were the consensus of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done James was compelled to acquiesce in the marriage because his brother, the King, had already agreed to it. I've added a source. I'm unsure if Miller constitutes a "vastly improved" source, but I've found him to be quite reliable. Coemgenus 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a suspected Catholic, as their president when the Protestant incumbent died. "Suspected" Catholic only? It would also be nice to mention that this was also resisted as a violation of the rights of Magdalen to elect, no matter who the King's friend was.
- Done You're quite right about the king infringing the college's statutes, which I added. The "suspected" part is because the sources disagree on whether Farmer had actually converted to Catholicism. I'll add that to the footnote when I have the sources in front of me later today.
- Belloc's thesis failed to alter the course of historical opinion completely. "At all" would be closer. Belloc's claim was not novel in Catholic apologetic, and we really should have a source that he had any real influence outside Catholic scholarship. The implicit denial in this whole paragraph that James sought a modern, up-to-date, absolutist monarchy, in the manner of Louis XIV, as good in itself, seems tendentious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The following extract from ODNB seems both more reasonable and more likely to be widely supported among historians:\
- James was genuinely committed to religious toleration, but also sought to increase the power of the crown. He wished that all his subjects could be as convinced as he was that the Catholic church was the one true church. He was also convinced that the established church was maintained artificially by penal laws which proscribed nonconformity. If these were removed, and conversions to Catholicism were encouraged, then many would take place. In the event his optimism was misplaced, for few converted. James underestimated the appeal of protestantism in general and the Church of England in particular. His was the zeal and even bigotry of a narrow-minded convert. But he was aware that not everybody would see the light as he had done. Religious toleration was still desirable because it encouraged commerce and helped a nation to prosper. This view was shared by many of his critics. But where James looked back nostalgically to France before the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when toleration and absolutism had gone hand in hand, they tended to look to the United Provinces, where toleration and republicanism combined to create a powerful mercantile economy. James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have to say that I think your posting of a POV notice on the historiography section is over-hasty. Why not give me a chance to respond to your questions? The only reason I added it at all was because the FAR comments mention the lack of an historiography as a reason to revoke FA-status. I'm sure there is some compromise we, and the other editors, can arrive at. Coemgenus 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, take it off; but I do have qualms about the whole section. I am not sure we need, or that Zantastic wanted, a historiography section; what we need are acknowledgements where (and by whom) there are significant disputes, per WP:NPOV. Is Belloc receiving more weight than his due?
- On the other hand, I miss what Zantastic expressly wanted; the observation that James' subjects distrusted his sincerity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quite right, I agree that they doubted James's sincerity, and that many historians still do. I'll try to work that in, and to examine whether Belloc's role is over-emphasised. Coemgenus 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added part of the above quotation from ODNB, and tried to separate Belloc's analysis from that of neutral historians. Do you think this is closer to what it should be? Coemgenus 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've tweaked Belloc; I'm still not convinced his position was new within Catholic apologetic. I would like to see some of the end of the DNB passage: James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. James was an autocrat on principle, as well as a bien-pensant Catholic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Those edits look ok to me. I just moved the citation. Coemgenus 19:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've tweaked Belloc; I'm still not convinced his position was new within Catholic apologetic. I would like to see some of the end of the DNB passage: James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. James was an autocrat on principle, as well as a bien-pensant Catholic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've added part of the above quotation from ODNB, and tried to separate Belloc's analysis from that of neutral historians. Do you think this is closer to what it should be? Coemgenus 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Quite right, I agree that they doubted James's sincerity, and that many historians still do. I'll try to work that in, and to examine whether Belloc's role is over-emphasised. Coemgenus 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- On the other hand, I miss what Zantastic expressly wanted; the observation that James' subjects distrusted his sincerity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Fine, take it off; but I do have qualms about the whole section. I am not sure we need, or that Zantastic wanted, a historiography section; what we need are acknowledgements where (and by whom) there are significant disputes, per WP:NPOV. Is Belloc receiving more weight than his due?
- I have to say that I think your posting of a POV notice on the historiography section is over-hasty. Why not give me a chance to respond to your questions? The only reason I added it at all was because the FAR comments mention the lack of an historiography as a reason to revoke FA-status. I'm sure there is some compromise we, and the other editors, can arrive at. Coemgenus 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- The following extract from ODNB seems both more reasonable and more likely to be widely supported among historians:\
- Did James actually act as Lord High Admiral before the Restoration? if so, when?
- Speaking of which, we should say something about the Dominion of New England; a sentence or so should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good idea. I'll see what i can find in the sources. Coemgenus 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- It would be also be nice to make the point (which goes back to Macaulay) that the function of the doctrine of non-resistance before James, whatever its rhetoric, was to tell the Dissenters that they should not have resisted Charles I and should not currently resist the Restoration settlement. I'm not sure how to phrase this neutrally and briefly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- It could be kind of lengthy just to explain all that, but I'll see what I can find in the sources that might help to illustrate it. Coemgenus 18:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else should have a close read before this gets promoted; but these weaknesses have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Leaning towards support This is a very good article and a pleasure to read. I just have a few minor comments.
My largest overall comment is: I suppose details about James the person had to be sacrificed? I felt as if the page didn't really explain who he was a man very clearly, although it explained his place in the large historical sweep very well.- You're right, but that stuff is a lot harder to write. I added a sentence about how he raised his children, and another about his love of women. Coemgenus 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since you've taken it from one of my favorite writers of the period, I can't really anything else, can I? :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, but that stuff is a lot harder to write. I added a sentence about how he raised his children, and another about his love of women. Coemgenus 14:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So it shouldn't be "King of the Scots" or "King of Scotland" in the first sentence? Somehow "King of Scots" sounded odd to me.- "King of Scots" is actually correct, although James was the last to use that title. Mary I of Scotland, for example, is known most commonly as Mary, Queen of Scots. Coemgenus 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. I should have thought of that analogy. Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- "King of Scots" is actually correct, although James was the last to use that title. Mary I of Scotland, for example, is known most commonly as Mary, Queen of Scots. Coemgenus 20:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Is Parliament a singular or plural noun? In other words, should it be "their opposition" or "its opposition" in the lead (and elsewhere)?- I think this is part of the AE/BE problem. I'll try to standardize it. Coemgenus 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Only two daughters survived: Mary (born 30 April 1662) and Anne (born 6 February 1665).[21] Anne Hyde was devoted to James, and influenced many of his decisions.[22] Even so, James kept a variety of mistresses, including Arabella Churchill and Catherine Sedley, and was reputed to be "the most unguarded ogler of his time. - I felt some slight confusion here initially over who was advising - the daughter or the wife.- Done The repetition of names in this family hinders normal writing. I think it's clearer now, but if not I'd welcome any suggestions you may have. Coemgenus 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There is a lot in the article about James' appointments to various posts; I think this can be cut down, unless it is explained what he did in those posts, if anything.- I took out the list. Most of the info is duplicate in complete sentences in the text, and the rest was tangential at best. Coemgenus 13:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems a little strange to announce Anne's death in a parenthetical.- Done You're right, I moved it up to the "Marriage" section. Coemgenus 20:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The hysteria of the plot eventually faded as Oates's accusations became more fantastic - This sentence comes as a bit of a surprise, as the "Popish Plot" bit seemed to be over. Perhaps a slight rewording or reordering?- Done I removed that bit. It wasn't necessary and didn't make much sense where it was. Coemgenus 21:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one more sentence describing what the Rye House Plot was all about?- Done I added a bit. Coemgenus 21:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps just a bit more about what the plotters wanted to achieve. Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I elaborated a bit, but their aims are not completely clear to historians, since it was a secret. All I can tell is the wanted to kill the King and James and somehow establish a republic. Coemgenus 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Couldn't they leave posterity a letter? :) Awadewit | talk 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- I elaborated a bit, but their aims are not completely clear to historians, since it was a secret. All I can tell is the wanted to kill the King and James and somehow establish a republic. Coemgenus 13:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps just a bit more about what the plotters wanted to achieve. Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps one sentence explaining why expanding the standing army was such a controversial move? A reference to the Civil War, maybe?- Done Added a sentence and a citation. Coemgenus 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
At the University of Oxford, James offended Anglicans by allowing Catholics to hold important positions in Christ Church and University College, two of Oxford's largest colleges, and attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a man of generally ill repute who was believed to be secretly Catholic,[73] as their president when the Protestant incumbent died, a violation of the Fellows' right to elect a candidate of their own choosing. - feels like a run-on sentence- Done I broke it up. Coemgenus 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps explain the significance of throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames?- Done I added a bit. Do you think that's sufficient, or should I elaborate? Coemgenus 20:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so picky, but perhaps a different word than "abandonment"? He deliberately threw it into the river - to me that doesn't sound like "abandonment". Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Jacobites would have agreed. ;) The Parliament kind of fudged the definitions of "abandon" and "abdicate" to fit the situation and make everything look legit. I tried to explain that a bit more, but the whole situation is confusing. Coemgenus 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so picky, but perhaps a different word than "abandonment"? He deliberately threw it into the river - to me that doesn't sound like "abandonment". Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The page does not seem to have consistent AE or BE spellings. Pick one system and stick with it.- Done User:Roger Davies has fixed some spelling inconsistancies. If you see any more, please let me know. Coemgenus 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I would choose one of the two big quotes at the end - both seemed excessive.- This is the result of our previous discussion; I would summarize both, and put the quotes into footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is someone going to fix this quote bit so I can support? Awadewit | talk 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've been busy at work, but I'd hoped to get to it today. You're welcome to try it yourself, if you feel like it. Coemgenus 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've truncated the Speck quotation, moving the full quotation to the footnote. I removed the majority of the Harris passage, leaving only the first sentence. Coemgenus 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just got home myself and was going to do it - you beat me to it. Looks much better, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've truncated the Speck quotation, moving the full quotation to the footnote. I removed the majority of the Harris passage, leaving only the first sentence. Coemgenus 20:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've been busy at work, but I'd hoped to get to it today. You're welcome to try it yourself, if you feel like it. Coemgenus 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is someone going to fix this quote bit so I can support? Awadewit | talk 09:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- This is the result of our previous discussion; I would summarize both, and put the quotes into footnotes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it is a courtesy to the reader to offer the publication location in the reference list, although I know it is not technically required by wikipedia. If someone wants to find one of these books in a library or request one of them from interlibrary loan, that information is often required.- Done I didn't know anyone needed that info. I added it from the books I have. Coemgenus 13:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
The table at the bottom of the page is huge! Anyway to hide it?- Done I feel like I was pushing my luck by putting the ancestors and issue in collapsable boxes, but I've done the same with the many, many titles, at your suggestion. I think it looks better, but let's see if anyone freaks out. Coemgenus 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ah. So much better. :) Awadewit | talk 21:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Well-written - I made a few copy edits as I was reading. Feel free to revert any that don't meet with your approval. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Just two things remaining from above: standing armies and the big quote. I'm looking forward to supporting soon.Awadewit | talk 18:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very happy to be able to support this article - it is so nice to see one brought back! Awadewit | talk 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've made a tweak.
- I see we have his mistresses; but there are two famous quotes on them, which should be here, at least in the notes; they're not in Catherine Sedley, either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was actually trying to find one of them last night, the one about how his priests must give him his mistresses for penance. I'll keep looking. Coemgenus 21:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- The other is: He doesn't love my beauty, for I have none; or my wit, for he hath not enough to see it. I'm sure that's not literal, and I may be wrong that it's famous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've heardit before, and I swear I read it in one of these sources, but I couldn't find it last night when I looked. If I come across it I'll add it, either to James II or to Catherine Sedley. Coemgenus 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- The ODNB life of Sedley doesn't have it; but they do suggest that her ugliness was exaggerated to hit at James. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've heardit before, and I swear I read it in one of these sources, but I couldn't find it last night when I looked. If I come across it I'll add it, either to James II or to Catherine Sedley. Coemgenus 21:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very good piece. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the support, and for fixing the BE/AE spelling problems. Coemgenus 16:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, a good article. Kyriakos 22:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's far better than other FACs. Learnedo 08:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support was just about to nominate it and thought what a great piece, so I lend my full support --Hadseys 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks very much -- and that goes for the other supporters, too. Coemgenus 19:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very interesting article. I made a small change in the beginning of the article about the dates. This article is so much better than another FAC (near the top, initials are S.B.) but I didn't have the heart to mention it there. If Sh.B. is a FAC, then this one deserves 5 FA stars. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments I fixed a few typos and inconsistencies, and found a handful of issues that need more finesse:
- Inconsistent capitalization of the King, the Throne, the Crown, Dissenters.
- "He and his wife, Anne, became to doubt their allegiance to the Church of England and became drawn to Catholicism." : I imagine this was meant to be 'began to doubt' or 'came to doubt', but how does one doubt their own allegiance?
- "his engagement to Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, Charles's adviser." : minister and adviser?
- "Exclusion Crisis" : the word 'crisis' is not capitalized in the Exclusion Bill article itself, so perhaps it should not be here.
- "The hysteria of the plot eventually faded": 'of the plot' rather implies there was a plot.
- "James's relations with many in Parliament, including the Earl of Danby, a former ally, were forever strained and a solid segment of Parliament had turned against him." : verb tense switch in mid sentence (were strained and had turned).
- "During the French Revolution, James's tomb was raided and his relics scattered." : 'relics' seems inappropriate, as he was not canonized.
- Congrats on a great article! Maralia 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done I've fixed all of these except for the capitalization of "king." I'm not sure which is correct -- any ideas? I thought maybe when we're talking of a specific King is should be capitalized, but lower-case when talking about the idea of a king in general. Also, I think "Crisis" should be capitalized, so I changed the other article to match. Coemgenus 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're right in your summary of the King/king distinction (see WP:MOS#Titles), but in application within the article, there are a couple mistakes:
- "the king's illegitimate son"
- "The king's judges"
- One further question: the explanatory text appended to the "See also" link to Robert Bellarmine reads as a bit of a non-sequitur, in that the link is clearly to a bio, but the explanatory text seems to refer to a written work. Maralia 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I think the "king" thing should be okay, but if you think one is wrong, feel free of course to change it. I removed the Bellarmine link from the See also field. I don't know why it was there. Coemgenus 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're right in your summary of the King/king distinction (see WP:MOS#Titles), but in application within the article, there are a couple mistakes:
- Support This is a fabulous article, and all my concerns have been addressed. Maralia 17:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it covers an important period in the history of Southern India. The article describes South India in the wake of the decline of its last great Hindu Empire in 1565, the struggle for independence from British rule by an offshoot Kingdom, the influence of English language and British governance on local customs and administration, the development of classical Carnatic music, Kannada literature, Kannada drama and stage, Mysore paintings and Indo-European architecture before and during the British Raj. The article is well referenced and has been through several rounds of copy edits. The automated peer review requirements have been addressed. Please provide constructive feedback on the content, its style and presentation. Thanks. Dineshkannambadi 23:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't reviewed the entire article yet, but this looks like another excellent article, Mr. Kannambadi. Great work, man! I'll offer my full evaluation later on. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I am looking forward to your comments. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 02:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support - Great work again. I don't think the Menuhin thing in the caption should be there though. Blnguyen (two years of monkeying) 06:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Done. Removed the image caption about Menuhin. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 12:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by John Broughton
- JB There are seven or so main sections, none of which have subsections. They should - that helps the reader skim the article, looking for interesting parts.
- DK Reply Actually there are 4 main sections - History, Administration, Economy and Culture. Under Culture, I have 5 subsections called Religion, Society, Literature, Music, Architecture. This is consistent with the other eight Karnataka history related FA's. The only newly introduced subsection is on Music, in place of "Language".Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
JB Also, there is no introductory paragraph to the main "Culture" section; a brief overview would be nice (a paragraph or so). Interestingly, such a paragraph appears at the end of the lead section; perhaps you could shorten that slightly, and add a longer version at the beginning of the "Culture" section?
- DK Reply This format is consistent with other FA's as I mentioned. But I will look into this suggestion and figure out how best to create an introduction.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
JB Third, I question the value of the daughter articles Society of the Kingdom of Mysore; it's not much longer than the "Society" section of the main article, so I suggest that you fold it back in (with subsections).
- DK Reply I accept that the subsection on Society may be almost as long as the daughter article for the same topic. By rolling back the daughter articles for Society, Administration, Economy into the main article, I would blow up the main article size to over 65K which is where I started from and am trying to avoid. Then there are daughter articles for Literature of the Kingdom of Mysore and Musicians of the Kingdom of Mysore that are truly big and greater than 25 Kbytes. So the best thing perhaps is to further shorten the sections/subsections Society, Administration, Economy as you suggest in the next point to about 3 paragraphs each. This way I maintain justification for creating sub-articles for the sections/subsections and dont blow up the overall article size.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
JB Finally, the convention when you have daughter articles (per WP:SS) is that you use the {{main}} template rather than the {{see also}} template, and that the parent article have only a summary (say, three paragrahs at most), rather than massive duplication between the two articles (a horror to keep both current, and synchronized).
- DK Reply I agree and will change the "See also" to "Main". I can reduce the existing sections, subsections to justify the need for sub-articles for the same topics.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
JB (Great work, by the way; I just think that a FA article has to aim at getting everything right.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Thanks for your suggestions. However, Before I start working on your suggestions, I would like to wait for comments from a few more reviewers just to see if they concur. I would not want to start a major rehaul of the sections/subsections and hold up reviews from other users. Thank you again.Dineshkannambadi 20:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will look into your recommendations tonight carefully. thanks.Dineshkannambadi 18:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- JB I looked again at the long sections/subsections. I think the issue is what's good for the reader, not what prior FAs did or didn't do. Having said that, I note that the current main page article, England national rugby union team, has one lengthy section. And looking through various guidelines, I can't find anything that says (for example) that when a section has eight or long paragraphs, or more than X words, or whatever, then it's recommended to add subsections. (I also looked through the long sections to see if I could split one myself, as a demonstration, and admit that I didn't see any that would easily split; sections that are chronological are usually the easiest.) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Thanks for your effort. I can try to reduce to some extent those sections/subsections that already have sub-articles. I am just concerned another reviewer may find it too skimpy and object to that. What is good for one reviewer may not be for another. But I appreciate your effort to promote this article for the better.Dineshkannambadi 14:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Support—A great read. Some minor issues:
- "South India", "southern India", and "south India": pick one.
- Same thing with "Kingdom"/"kingdom" (by itself).
- Some dash/hyphen inconsistencies (see WP:DASH). I took care of some.
- Thanks. Saravask 22:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply Thanks. I will look into this inconsistency.Dineshkannambadi 22:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply Done.Dineshkannambadi 01:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Support I think this is one of the best history related article and i think it must be given the FA status. Amartyabag TALK2ME 03:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment History section is a little too long. Can it be broken into sub sections for ease of reading? Administration section too could be broken up into sub sections or summarised. Architecture section could be a top-level section instead of being under culture given its length and coverage. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply The history covers about 550 years of the Mysore Kingdom. Hence it may appear a bit bulky. Making it any shorter would mean removing pertinent details which would hurt continuity. I have explained only about four important kings and just barely mentioned the others. The "Administration" section can be further shortened as it already has a sub-article. I will look into this. The "Architecture" subsection has been under Culture section in all the Karnataka FA's so far, so I have maintained the same format. thanksDineshkannambadi 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sundar I agree with you on why the history section is long. It's comprehensive. I didn't want it to be shortened, just split up into subsections. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 13:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Please clarify how you want it broken into subsections. I have not done this for the FA's and this may break the format. Do you want seperate subsections for native rule vs foreign rule? Or do you prefer pre-1760 (pre Haider-Tipu-British) and post 1760 (Haider-Tipu-British) history subsections.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sundar reply I'm not an expert in the history of Mysore. But, if there are well-known or at least discrete eras as in Chola dynasty, we can split the section based on them. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Please clarify how you want it broken into subsections. I have not done this for the FA's and this may break the format. Do you want seperate subsections for native rule vs foreign rule? Or do you prefer pre-1760 (pre Haider-Tipu-British) and post 1760 (Haider-Tipu-British) history subsections.Dineshkannambadi 15:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I have reduced the "Administration section" somewhat.Dineshkannambadi 15:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sundar reply Thanks. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I have made "architecture" into a new section. The only reasonable split I can imagine in the "History" section is "pre-British" and "anglo-mysore conflict". There are no seperate dynasties here unlike in Chola case.thanks.Dineshkannambadi 16:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Done. Split History into two subsections.Dineshkannambadi 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sundar reply Thanks for the fixes. It has improved readability. Will read the article fully and comment later. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 16:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Done. Split History into two subsections.Dineshkannambadi 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support High quality --Tamás Kádár 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments by qp10qp
Comment. A very interesting article. Many congratulations to the editor for such a thorough piece of work. Most of the information is new to me, and so I cannot judge its accuracy. I am slightly familiar with the wars against the British, and this part did raise a few questions.
- Battle of Pollilur: it struck me that if this is worth illustrating with a picture, it is worth mentioning in the article.
- DK Reply Actually it is meantioned in the "Architecture" section.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I have now indicated Pollilur is near Kanchipuram.Dineshkannambadi 12:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Do you mean this: "The west wall of the palace is covered with murals depicting Tipu Sultan's victory over Colonel Baillie's army at Kanchipuram in 1780" ? If so, I feel it is confusing to have the same battle called two different names in one article. Without prior knowledge, one does not associate this with the picture caption: "Mural of Battle of Pollilur in Tipu's summer palace"!qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The war was a victory for Haider Ali, who drove the British up to modern Chennai and dictated peace terms to the most powerful European state of the time. I am not sure that he was dictating peace terms to the British state. At the time, the East India Company, though it was supervised by the government, had its own board of control, negotiated alliances and treaties on its own behalf, and ran its own armies. I don't suppose that makes much difference from an Indian point of view, but it was not coterminous with the British state.
- DK Reply What the historians (who made that statement) meant was that the British presidency at Chennai sued for peace and Haider dictated the terms. They use the term "European power", so I will change "state" to "power".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Most powerful European power" is rather ungainly, though. I don't think the sentence needs the added value at the end; it is better to simply state the facts, I think. I would end the sentence at "peace terms".qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)\
- DK Reply Done. Removed European power.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- An alliance against Mysore had been formed by the Marathas, the Nizam of Hyderabad and the British Raj, culminating in the first Anglo-Mysore war in 1767. By the same token, I don't think we can talk about the British Raj at this time. Perhaps it is seen differently in India, but British history books date the Raj much later, from the mid-nineteenth century, as far as I know.
- DK Reply Copy edit issue. I have changed British Raj to British.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Tipu's attack on the Kingdom of Travancore, a British feudatory, resulted in the third Anglo-Mysore war. What is meant by "a British feudatory" here? I note that you use the term "feudatory" to describe the relations between Indian states as well, but I am not sure it is a correct term for relations, largely driven by commerce, between the company and Indian states. "Protectorate" might be a better word, since the aim was to protect company trade. Feudalism, at least by that name, was a thing of the past in Europe by this time.
- Dk Reply The term in the book is "ally", so I have changed "feudatory" to "ally".Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is a good solution, I think.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nizam of Golconda/Nizam of Hyderabad: You use both names, but in my opinion, if you were to use one only, it would be clearer to the reader that they are the same person.
- DK Reply Ok. I will make it consistent.Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- In the modern history of India, Tipu Sultan stands out as an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a patriot to the core. "A patriot to the core" does not strike me as the most sober phrase. Patriot is an awkward word here because it is not clear (to me, anyway) what it means. Patriot of what? Of Mysore? Not of India, surely, because while Tipu was fighting the British, he was also fighting the Nizam. Was the Nizam less a patriot for allying with the British (especially when Tipu was allied with the French)? And Tipu happily attacked other Indian states when it suited him. Perhaps it is true that he is now regarded as an Indian patriot in retrospect, so to speak; but if that is what is meant, perhaps the terms of reference could be tightened up.
qp10qp 00:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I think you are correct in saying that he is regarded a patriot in the present context while the Nizam is described as fickle. I will play down the sentence
as Some modern Indian historians consider Tipu Sultan an inveterate enemy of the British, an able administrator, an innovator and a nationalist to the core. Dineshkannambadi 01:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The best historians know that it is anachronistic to refer to nationalism in eighteenth-century India, long before India became a nation and when states were forever changing shape and allies; it is a more modern phenomenon. However, many historians aren't the best, I admit.qp10qp 11:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I have removed "nationalist" based on your arguement. However, the term nationalist could also apply to the "Nation of Mysore" as Tipu may have seen it.Dineshkannambadi 12:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
comments by user:Sarvagnya
Strong support and comment - First class work. One of the most important princely states under the British Raj certainly deserved an FA. Thanks DK. The only issues I see at this point are - 1) the prose needs some tweaking in some places.
- DK Reply Will work on the prose.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
2) the images need to be arranged better if possible. Also this image of Tipu ought to make it to the article somewhere. Tipu and Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar were the greatest kings of Mysore in my estimate, for, under Tipu the kingdom reached its height of military power while under NKrW, the kingdom reached its zenith of all round development. I somehow squeezed in NKrW's image there, but Tipu should also find a place.
- DK Reply From my reading, when historians focus on political history, they write extensively about Tipu Sultan. When they write about cultural history, its a not clear who was greater, Krishnaraja Wodeyar III or IV. Both made valuable contributions.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply Will add that image in place of the Mysore flag. The flag will go in the box for which provision exists.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply I though there was a place to put it in the box, but dont see any.Dineshkannambadi 20:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
3) The map in the infobox should be cropped to show the kingdom more prominently.
- Dk Reply I am using the same format as maps in some other FA's. user:Planemad who drew the map is busy with exams right now. So once he is free, I can ask him to just draw the map showing south India.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
4) The flag (and the emblem) should be fitted in the infobox somehow, so we can fit Tipu's image in the history section easily. Sarvagnya 17:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply Will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support: Brilliant article, though seems trivial in between, but digestable. Indianescence 18:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong support and Comment: Excellent content. Have done some cp-edit myself to make minor prose and style corrections. I have other minor comments:
- These two sentences are confusing: The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes. The Propaganda sent out Capuchins, the Discalced Carmelites, the Theatines and the missionaries of the Society of Paris. They may need to be reworded to indicate the correct meaning
- DK reply Ok. The Propaganda is what the patronage by other European colonists to missionaries was called. Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The public began to enjoy Carnatic music through its broadcast via public address systems set up on the palace grounds. Not sure if this is needed or it needs to be reworded. -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 11:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk reply This statement was meant to bring out the fact that carnatic music was no longer for the listening pleasure of the elite only, but the common also.Dineshkannambadi 11:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Excellent article. Comprehensive coverage, ample citations and pictures, subarticles for virtually every section and subsection making it a very strong summary style article. Deserves FA star. - KNM Talk 02:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Extremely well written and comprehensive. -- Naveen (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
No & Oppose
Pass & support
- On the basis that it does not fulfill #1d NPOV. The lead sounds too much like a celebration of subject matter. Learnedo 09:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply If you can tell me where exactly it fails NPOV in the lead, I can try to modify it.Dineshkannambadi 14:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply I have reduced the usage of adjectives in the Lead section.Dineshkannambadi 14:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Comments by Learnedo
- Reducing the usage of adjectives would definitely help maintain NPOV, though at times they are appropriate. I will edit what I can later on today and change my vote accordingly. Learnedo 20:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Few things :
- "Later, during a period of political uncertainty in southern India," Can it be a bit more precise?
- "Under the leadership of kings Narasaraja" Since the article used 'rule' already, change leadership to rule. Leadership gives positive connotations and is not neutral.
- DK done, changed ti "rule".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "reached the zenith of its military" Why zenith and not simply peak. Sounds like we're in awe and amazement.
- DK Done.changed to "peak".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "time, it challenged the might of the Maratha Empire and even the" Again, NOT NPOV. Far too much suggestions for praising of this kingdom.
- DK Done. downplayed it.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not so much downplay as it is not selling the kingdom. Learnedo 02:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Many battles were waged against the Marathas, the Nizam of Golconda and the rulers of Travancore and Malabar, often resulting in victory and territorial gains."
- DK done. downplayed it. Just fought wars with them.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "However, their most famous conflicts were the four Anglo-Mysore wars." Source it by attribution.
- DK citations exits in history section.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Success in the first two Anglo-Mysore wars was followed by defeat in the third and fourth" Either have it success & failure or victory & defeat, as the opposing terms.
- DK Done. changed to "failure".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "ending in Tipu's death on the battlefield." Is on the battlefield necessary. Makes it sound like the person is a hero or something.
- Dk Removed "Tipu's death of Battlefield".Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "The Kingdom of Mysore was responsible for development of the fine arts" to The kingdom. We already know what the article is on by now.
- DK modified.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Its court, which had famous artists and musicians, became a centre of Carnatic music." Reference some famous folks over here.
- Dk mentioned famous musicians.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Many Mysore kings were acclaimed writers and composers, and both the kings themselves and the classical artists they patronised have left an indelible mark on the culture of southern India."
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Bias http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Balance http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#State_the_facts
- Dk removed adjective and modified as suggested.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Completely get rid of an "indelible mark." How about "had a lasting effect on" or "made a significant impact on," or just get rid of it. It's not needed. State the facts. Learnedo 00:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- DK Done. changed as adviced.Dineshkannambadi 02:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support The article looks great, but I have two requests. Could you replace refs 125 and 131? They seem to be self-published sources, which according to policy, are not reliable sources. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Dk Reply ok. I will replace those citations at the earliest. I will find book citations from reliable writers for those citations.thanksDineshkannambadi 23:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Very well written article with ample of sources. But the template of Mysore kings in the second section seems to have problems with some browsers. Or is it just my computer? Gnanapiti 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Well written and organised article definitely worthy of FA status. Hedgehog Kanna 17:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
Please ensure use of endash in appropriate places (year ranges). I changed to endash in two instances in the article.Please see if more changes are needed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Dk reply Ok, will do.Dineshkannambadi 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is now taken care. Thanks, - KNM Talk 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well. it was not taken care of. I changed quite a lot to endashes (in the infoboxes). apparently, no problem any more.
- Well, it was indeed taken care of completely, after your initial comment, and before your this latest edit. You changed endashes before making the comment. I hope this clarifies. :) Cheers, - KNM Talk 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Now, wikilinking of dates, and first time an unit appears. Especially, dates need to be wikilinked.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Well. it was not taken care of. I changed quite a lot to endashes (in the infoboxes). apparently, no problem any more.
- It is now taken care. Thanks, - KNM Talk 17:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- DK Reply This is a topic that has come up on every FAC. Some reviewers want it, others dont want it. Not sure which way to go.Dineshkannambadi 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. some likes it. and some dislikes. However, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) recommends auto-formating (linking of dates). It's always been a problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Shall I link it outside the "Mysore Kings infobox"?Dineshkannambadi 00:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
DK Reply Done. I have linked dates and years per your request.Dineshkannambadi 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Page needs work, mostly connected to language issues. I take up only the “religion” section here, since it raises issues beyond just language.
- The Mysore kings were predominantly Hindu Vaishnavas.
- The formal sectarian affiliation of the ruling family is an important point and definitely requires a reputable citation. Particularly since the belief (IMO accurate) is common that the Wodeyars belong to the Shaivite Lingayat sect.
- The numerous Vishnu temples built by them are testimony to their adherence to the Vaishnava faith.
- WP:OR. Personally, I would not have this sentence even if I did find one or the other published work saying something to this effect. It makes me wonder whether “predominantly” in the preceding sentence indicates similar wishful extrapolations, based, say, on first names or gifts to temples. We should not infer from SM Krishna’s name that he is or his family is Vaishnava.
- The Yoga Narasimha Temple and the Cheluvanarayana Swamy Temple at Melkote came under the patronage of the kings of Mysore.
- So what? Numerous other temples did, and these are relatively minor ones. WP:UNDUE.
- The rise of Mysore as a centre of south Indian culture has been traced to this period.
- Erase, meaningless sentence. What period, anyway? 1399-1947?
- Raja Wodeyar I initiated the celebration of the Dasara festival in Mysore, a proud tradition of the erstwhile Vijayanagara royal family. However, the kings were tolerant to other sects and religious faiths. This is evidenced by the high ranking non-Vaishnavites in their courts...
- For one, the sequence of sentences suggests (unintendedly, I’m sure) that the Vaishnavite Dasara (Sri Rama Jayam) is what was celebrated by the rulers of Mysore. Not so. Also, a small detail: Dasara is a timeless tradition in Mysore, and it used to be presided over by the Vijayanagara viceroy of Srirangapatna before the Wodeyars took charge in the mid 1600s.
- ...and also the fact that many of the Mysore queens were Jains.
- Is a publication entitled “Bahubali of Jainbadri (Shravanabelagola) and other Jain Shrines of Deccan” (Jain and Jain, 1953) really a reliable source for this? They may have been respectful of the Jain faith, made gifts, been liberal, all of which you say in many places, but did they ever convert to Jainism? And how many is “many”?
- The contact between South India and Islam goes back to the 7th century when trade between Hindu kingdoms and Islamic caliphates thrived. These Muslim traders settled on the Malabar Coast and married local Hindu women, and their descendants came to be known as Mappillas. By the 14th century, Muslims had become a significant minority in the south, though the advent of Portuguese missionaries checked their growth.
- Erase, since none of these sentences is relevant to Mysore state. However, having some related relevant content, if properly annotated, may not be a bad idea.
- The spread of Christianity in South India has been traced back to the arrival of the Portuguese on the west coast. It was through the patronage of these devout Roman Catholics that chaplains and missionaries went to various regions to encourage people to join the Christian faith. Some evidence, however, suggests that not all of these conversions were peaceful and that the Portuguese soldiers may also have undertaken coercive methods to achieve their ends. Saint Francis Xavier, perhaps the most respected Christian saint in India, gave a new boost to the growth of Christianity. He traveled from village to village, healing the sick, burying the dead and doing what he could to reduce the miseries of the poor and underprivileged. The institutions established in his name are a testimony to his popularity and achievements.
- Ditto as above. Really, the rambling is getting out of hand. See WP:Summary. Besides, this is factually inaccurate, as the Mar Thoma christians claim a an origin predating the Portuguese presence in India.
- At last, something relevant! Can we have more detail (when, what place exactly, appointed by whom, to what effect...) and maybe a citation? This is the kind of stuff that you should replace the paragraphs mentioned above with.
- The Portuguese patronage called Padraodo was suppressed by the Propaganda of the more hostile European powers, including the English, the French, the Dutch and the Danes....Tranquebar....Lutheran church....absorbed by the Anglican church....
- What does the first sentence mean?? What were the specific effects on Mysore? And the rest (or the whole) can be entirely omitted. Is the micro-mini nitty-gritty of Christian missions really of importance to a summary article on Mysore, given that the Christian population of Mysore has always been miniscule?
- Other points:
- King Chamaraja Wodeyar IV made a contribution of four villages (Change to “endowment” or “grant”)
- They opine that Tipu administered mass conversions of Christians and Hindus...(change wording, drop "administered")
- Correct the spelling of “Palyagars” to “Paleygars” or “Polegars”
- Create stubs and link to the first instances of all the rulers' names,
- Remove the folktale of Naraaraja Wodeyar’s wrestling match in Trichy, per WP:UNDUE and WP:Summary.
- Change “Jain royal families” to “Jain noble families.” They were arasus and polegars under the Wodeyar rulers, right?
- The map in the lead shows the extent of the kingdom at its peak, c.1784. In historical terms, this lasted for an eye-blink of time. At its rendition in 1881, the state was considerably larger than it had ever been before the time of Tipu. This, after a large portion of the state had been annexed during the Anglo-Mysore wars! IMO the map in the lead should be of the Raj-era princely state, because that was the longest period of stable borders. The present lead map could be moved to the history section.
- There is a great deal of work that could be done on the rest of the article also. Problems of relevance and due weight exist also in the “society” section and elsewhere. Why is it imperative for us to be informed, in the literature section, that "...the Mysore court (was) adorned by famous writers and composers, many of who were Vaishnava by faith..." Please have the page thoroughly copyedited and vetted for perspective. I would suggest Fowler, for both diligence and perspective. Regards, ImpuMozhi 05:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
For your consideration, I'm nominating this article for FA status. It has undergone expansion and review during the past month, and I believe it is now well-referenced and reasonably comprehensive. The number of illustrations may be considered low, but this is partly a result of an article on a transparent gas: I didn't want to overburden the article with images that may be only indirectly related (such as a nuclear reactor rod, for example). Please let me know your concerns and I'll try to address them. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great improvement on my original de-stub from several years ago. I just wish I beat you to bringing this to FA quality. ;) --mav 23:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This is probably the most comprehensive article on xenon I have seen anywhere. Most chemical encyclopedias and textbooks lump it with the other noble gases, where helium and argon steal much of the attention. The nominated article is certainly much more comprehensive than the one at britannica.com. --Itub 08:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Object for now, here's why:
- Are there any reactions described for other noble gasses or is Xe unique in that regard? (How much fun. The inaccuracies they teach you in school.)
the result may indicate that Mars lost most of its primordial atmosphere, possibly within the first 100 million years." First 100 million years of what? Its existence?
- DoneAddressed. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- "As a liquid, xenon has a density of 3.52 g/mL, about 3.5 times the density of water." At what pressure is that?
- DoneThe "Handbook of Inorganic Chemicals" doen't give a pressure for the liquid phase of xenon. — RJH (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done, I've added a reference for the liquid density. --Itub 09:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Using gigapascals of pressure, xenon has been forced into a metallic phase." What does this metallic phase look like?
- Not doneIf a diamond anvil cell is used to produce the pressure, how would we be able to see it? I have no idea. — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- There's nothing that can be said about how it "looks". I don't see why this can be an objection to featuring the article, if the original sources don't say anything about how it looks (probably because no one knows!). May I point out that the articles on hydrogen and metallic hydrogen don't say how metallic hydrogen looks either, for the same reason? And that hydrogen is featured? --Itub 09:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's probably a good idea to briefly explain what clathrates.
- Done I believe it does: "As well as compounds where xenon forms a chemical bond, xenon can form clathrates—substances where xenon atoms are trapped by the crystalline lattice of another compound." Does this need further clarification? — RJH (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I swear that explanation wasn't there when I read it... - Mgm|(talk) 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That might be. I think I had an explanation in there at one point but a few editors have been changing some of the details because of the Scientific PR. It's one of the 'joys' of working on a collaborative wiki. =) — RJH (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I swear that explanation wasn't there when I read it... - Mgm|(talk) 17:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Because of the high cost of xenon, however, economic application will require a closed system so that the gas can be recycled.[17]" Is that smart? What about the danger of airborne viral infections?
- Done I added a note. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Since Xe is so expensive, what are the advantages of using Xenon when other cheaper methods are available?
- Done In what particular context? Many of the applications already explain this. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Forget it. Apparently another explanation appeared out of nowhere. - Mgm|(talk) 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- And finally, perhaps it's just my personal preference, but I would like people who read just the introduction to be able to find the sources without scouring the entire article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- DoneI re-used some refs. for the lead. — RJH (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some replies (I've turned your bullet points into numbered items for ease of reference; I hope you don't mind):
- 1. There are reactions for some of the other noble gases, which are described in the relevant articles. But perhaps a brief comparison could be made here.
- 2. The infobox references are linked at the bottom of the table; see Chemical elements data references. This is the standard practice for element infoboxes, and is the same as in other featured articles such as hydrogen, uranium, titanium, helium, and francium.
- That links to a bunch of general references, not any specific to Xe. I want to know exactly what page was used. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That's not true, you can find the exact reference for xenon in each of the data tables. For example, if you go to Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page), you'll find three references and values for Xenon (and all of the other elements), as well as the recommended value that was chosen by WikiProject Elements. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- That links to a bunch of general references, not any specific to Xe. I want to know exactly what page was used. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 3. First 100 million years since the formation of the planet (if not, since when? I can't think of any other meaning.).
- 4. Density doesn't change that much with pressure, so the pressure is often omitted in casual conversation. Standard conditions are 1 atmosphere or 1 bar. However, this should be checked.
- 5. What do you mean by "look like". I really doubt that anyone has literally "looked" at this substance, given that it must be inside a contraption that stands enormous pressures.
- Then how do they know they've got it? Perhaps things like color of the solid phase can be predicted? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I suspect they detected the phase change thermodynamically, and they probably identified the metallic phase by its electrical conductivity. I don't think such details belong in an article about Xenon. Interested readers can look up the references, although eventually we could create an article about metallic xenon (as we have one already on metallic hydrogen) where all those details could be elaborated. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Then how do they know they've got it? Perhaps things like color of the solid phase can be predicted? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 6. I'm not sure what you are asking about the clathrates. Could you clarify the question?
- I think a brief definition should be given for people who don't have Lupin's popups enabled. It's one of those sci-speak words. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- There is already a brief definition in the article: "[compounds] where xenon atoms occupy vacancies in a lattice of water molecules". But perhaps the definition could be clarified further. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I think a brief definition should be given for people who don't have Lupin's popups enabled. It's one of those sci-speak words. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- 7. I'm sure they've worked out ways of filtering the xenon properly, but that might be worth looking into.
- 8. Good question.
- 9. No comments.--Itub 10:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Another question: Since Xenon is described as colorless, do we really need an image in the appearance field of the infobox? - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Some people like those images, which is why they are found in all element infoboxes, even for invisible substances... I personally don't care much for this image. --Itub 10:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble in seeing the added value. The image at Invisible pink unicorn has a comedical element, any other atom article has an image with an informative element. I see neither in this image. - Mgm|(talk) 17:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's not true that "any other atom article has an image with an informative element". The featured article on hydrogen and helium have pictures that look exactly like the one for xenon (because the elements look the same). I would rather keep the photo for consistency, and because it helps illustrate the "invisibility" of the element in a visual way, for readers that haven't read the part of the text that describes it as a "colorless gas". But as I said, I don't care that much for the image. I see it just as a minor matter of preference, and don't see how it can be an objection to featuring the article. --Itub 09:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- An identical image is used on the hydrogen article. I suppose it's there for consistency, and it conveys the information that it's a transparent gas visually. Personally I would have preferred a transparent container that showed the seal, but this seems minimally sufficient for its purpose. — RJH (talk) 14:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent, well-written article. I confess, I was not aware xenon could even form compounds. Would it be possible, for the liberal arts majors like me, to explain a little more how this is possible? If not, I;d still support, but it might make it more understandable to laymen. Coemgenus 15:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple of sentences near the end of the History section that I hope will explain how the first compound was produced; at least according to my admittedly very modest understanding of chemistry. — RJH (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that's much better. Coemgenus 16:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added a couple of sentences near the end of the History section that I hope will explain how the first compound was produced; at least according to my admittedly very modest understanding of chemistry. — RJH (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Well-written article. FA quality.--Tamás Kádár 15:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. My objections have mostly been addressed. A few explanations like how metallic xenon can be detected and for the question Coemgenus (talk · contribs) posed would help strengthen my support, but this is pretty much close to perfection. (If the photo of the colorless gas is kept I'd also like to see a more detailed description on the image page telling us exactly in what state the gas was photographed and more importantly, what was on the background. - Mgm|(talk) 21:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I wasn't able to find a suitable replacement image of some transparent laboratory glassware used to hold a gas. Perhaps this is something that one of the Chemistry WikiProjects would like to address? Or I could just whip up a rendered image of such with my Bryce software package. — RJH (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Comprehensive, well-written, maybe a little technical in the end sections, but, hey, that's fine. I'd consider explaining the terms "Spin 1/2" and "Colour temprature" a little more explicitly, the others seem fine. Adam Cuerden talk 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I included explanations for the terms "Spin ½" and "color temperature". Thank you for pointing them out. — RJH (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comments. I have a few comments:
- 1) Infobox lists fusion and boiling temperatures, but does not specify relevant pressures. While they are probably 1 atm, it is necessary to write them, because fusion and boiling (especially) points depend on pressure.
- Yes that would be good. The problem for me is when the references don't list the pressures. I didn't see one listed in the CRC I googled. This may be an issue that the Chemistry WikiProject needs to tackle for all of the elements. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- See Notes in the Boiling_points_of_the_elements_(data_page). Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yes that would be good. The problem for me is when the references don't list the pressures. I didn't see one listed in the CRC I googled. This may be an issue that the Chemistry WikiProject needs to tackle for all of the elements. — RJH (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:2) The density is expressed either in g/cm3 (or kg/m3) or in g/mL or kg/L. I think the article should use a uniform set of units. I suggest using g/cm3 and kg/m3. The same can be said about the units of volume: L and mL should be substituted with cm3 and m3.
- I left a question about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:3) The article says that Xenon is produced in SN explosions (r-process). It is only partly true. Some Xenon isotops are exclusevly made by p-process (124, 126) and s-procees (128, 130)—see [70], [71], [72]. The first process takes place in AGB stars and the second only partialy in SNII with a contribution from classical novae.[73]
- Thank you. I wasn't sure how much detail was needed for the purposes of this article, so for now I just inserted a summary sentence. But it could easily be expanded by somebody with access to all of those references. (I usually can't access very recent ApJ articles.) — RJH (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:4) There are a few duplications in the article: the fourth paragraph in 'History' section largely overlaps with the last paragraph in 'Isotopes'; and the last paragraph in 'History' duplicates the first paragraph in 'Compounds'.
- They are only slightly overlapping; by no means complete duplications. I think the mild overlap is needed for flow. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, but I continue to think that duplication can be slightly reduced. Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- They are only slightly overlapping; by no means complete duplications. I think the mild overlap is needed for flow. — RJH (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:5) The first sentence in the last paragraph of 'Illumination and optics' subsection should be moved to the second paragraph.
- Huh? That action doesn't make sense from a context perspective. Perhaps this was fixed already? — RJH (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- I meant "The first solid-state laser, invented in 1960, was pumped by a xenon flashlamp.", which have been already removed.Ruslik 05:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? That action doesn't make sense from a context perspective. Perhaps this was fixed already? — RJH (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:6) In 'Occurrence' section of the article prices of Xe are specified in euros as of 1999, while 'Anesthesia' subsection lists them in USD as of 2005. Can more uniform set of prices be used?
- I removed the later from the article so that there is only one price listed. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
:7) In 'Other' subsection psi are used as units for pressure. They should be converted into Pa or bar.
- Fixed. — RJH (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I hope my suggestions will be helpful. Ruslik 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. I killed the last red link by creating John Reynolds (physicist). Can anybody have a look?--Stone 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Note, there's nothing wrong with redlinks and their removal is not required for FA status, unless the link is to a topic that is unlikely to attain notability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. The first footnote in compounds section points to 38 which seems a odd publication for the first synthesis of a xenon compound. The Xenon hexafluoroplatinate article provides the original anouncement in 1962.--Stone 16:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- The first mentioning in the history section is also noted with a strange article mostly concerning other things than Xenon hexafluoroplatinate.--Stone 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Another elements is ready for FA!--Stone 08:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's well-done.
Remark: I especially admire the extensive Applications section. Leranedo 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
Mr. Achebe is probably the most important African writer of the 20th century. I have spent the past month taking this article from Start-class to what several folks have indicated is FA quality.
For biographical info I have relied heavily on one text, written by Ezenwa-Ohaeto – it is the only book-length biography available. The numerous other books called Chinua Achebe are devoted to analysis. – Scartol · Talk 00:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I poked around behind the scenes as this article developed. Reviewed it as well. It's in tip-top shape. We ought to try to get Achebe to read it. --JayHenry 01:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Remarkable coincidence – I was just thinking about how incredible it would be to hear from him about it. Thanks for the votes of confidence. – Scartol · Talk 01:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well, he's still at Bard. Achebe... think he checks that e-mail? --JayHenry 01:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would be wary of that. I belong to a children's literature listserv to which Philip Pullman subscribes. He is not shy when it comes to expressing his opinion of scholars' interpretations of his books. It has made me glad to some extent that my writers are dead. :) Awadewit | talk 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do know someone at Bard, but I don't think they've had any contact with Achebe. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd much prefer to send an actual letter, once the FA star is added. Thanks everyone for the ideas. Insofar as the article here doesn't interpret his work much (I've just cited other sources that do), I doubt we'd hear the kind of comments Pullman sends to the listserv. – Scartol · Talk 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Ooh! And you should include the URL to Jimbo's fundraising video. Maybe that scene about ten seconds in where Jimbo does his T.J. Eckleburg impression will convince Achebe to donate to Wikipedia and maybe even create an account! --JayHenry 21:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'd much prefer to send an actual letter, once the FA star is added. Thanks everyone for the ideas. Insofar as the article here doesn't interpret his work much (I've just cited other sources that do), I doubt we'd hear the kind of comments Pullman sends to the listserv. – Scartol · Talk 16:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I do know someone at Bard, but I don't think they've had any contact with Achebe. Nishkid64 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would be wary of that. I belong to a children's literature listserv to which Philip Pullman subscribes. He is not shy when it comes to expressing his opinion of scholars' interpretations of his books. It has made me glad to some extent that my writers are dead. :) Awadewit | talk 01:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I peer reviewed this excellent article and I whole-heartedly support its promotion to featured article. It is well-written, well-researched, comprehensive, and adheres to all of the rules of the MOS of which I am aware. (Perhaps new ones have just been added at this very moment, however.) I am delighted that Scartol has taken the time to research this much needed biography and chastened that I am not doing more to assist in such valuable endeavors. Instead, I am posting articles that no one reads besides myself and ten other people in the world. Ah well. Here I sit and research for the dissertation; I can do other. :) Awadewit | talk 01:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Small comment Could you add somewhere in the lead when he moved to the US? Right now the narrative is a bit nebulous - it is only at the end of the lead that the reader realizes he lives in the US. Awadewit | talk 02:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done Added. – Scartol · Talk 11:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Just wonderful. Comprehensive, clear, and Achebe is an endlessly fascinating subject. DBaba 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support, well written and comprehensive article.--Grahamec 03:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I don't think the images of the Laos skyline and the University by night really add to the article. - Mgm|(talk) 08:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree they're not the best images in the world, but given the lack of anything else related to the article (the only free image relating to Conrad I could find is this image of a boat he sailed on.) Do you think the article would be better without these images? (I really dislike big blocks of text.) Or do you have suggestions for alternatives? Thanks for your input. – Scartol · Talk 11:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe the article would be better without them, but I'd be happy to consider alternatives, or wait out other opinions on the matter. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- I believe these images are preferable to large blocks of text - both aesthetically and for ease of reading. Awadewit | talk 12:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Really good article.--Tamás Kádár 15:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Still not agree on the images, but it's not serious enough to make me oppose. - Mgm|(talk) 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Kudos to all who worked on this article! It's really close to FA IMO. There are still some issues I'd like to see being addressed before this is article is promoted nonetheless:
- "He is best known for his first novel, Things Fall Apart (1958), which is perhaps the most widely-read book in modern African literature." Aren't there statistics about what the best-selling book in modern African literature is? That would be a much stronger claim that "perhaps the most widely-read".
- Done I removed the word "perhaps". The original quote in Ogbaa states: "Things Fall Apart is unquestionably the most widely read, best-selling, and influential book in modern African literature." Do you think I should include the whole thing? – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "His parents stood at a crossroads of culture". I'm assuming this is referring to the crossing of traditional African and Western Christian culture. Is that correct? Could you just add a few words explaining this a bit further?
- Done I added a phrase to clarify. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Chinua's mother and sister Zinobia Uzoma continually told him stories as a child, which he repeatedly requested." "continually" is an exaggeration, generally not a good idea for Wikipedia in my opinion.
- Done Fixed. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "At the age of twelve, Achebe moved to the village of Nekede, four kilometers from Owerri." Did his family move with him? Might be worth mentioning...
- Nope, it was just him. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Although he was also accepted to the equally-prestigious Dennis Memorial Grammar School in Onitsha, Achebe attended Government College in Umuahia from 1944 to 1948." I'm no expert in grammar, but isn't "equally-prestigious" just an adverb followed by the adjective it modifies? Why the hyphen then? Please excuse me, if this is accepted by British English or some other non-American dialect.
- Done You're right. Removed the hyphen. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "These earned him a "Major" classification and a scholarship to study medicine." Why the quotation marks around "Major"?
- Done Often they are used to indicate that the term is used in a particular instance, but I don't think they're necessary here. Removed. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't really understand why Achebe got a scholarship to study medicine, but then had a "year of grueling work in physics". Were the physics classes part of his studies in medicine?
- Done I suppose so. To avoid confusion, I changed it to the more general "science". – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- ". It produced a plethora of remarkable writers in the years before and after Achebe's presence there, including Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, novelist Elechi Amadi, poet and playwright John Pepper Clark, and poet Christopher Okigbo." It could be argued that "remarkable" is POV. Why not well-known, famous, or notable?
- Done In my opinion, "remarkable" and "notable" are nearly identical synonyms, but "famous" works for me. Changed. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Although the group was well-received by students and faculty, Achebe was "shocked" by the harsh realpolitik he met in the US." The realpolitik towards the conflict in Nigeria/Biafra? Its unclear because the preceding sentence deals with slavery in the US.
- Done Clarified. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "In 1980 he met James Baldwin at a conference held by the African Literature Association in Gainesville, Florida USA. Baldwin was likewise eager to meet Achebe, and said "It's very important that we should meet each other, finally, if I must say so, after something like 400 years."[124]" Could you expand this paragraph? It doesn't really say what the two talked about and why this meeting is of any importance.
- Done I had more on Baldwin earlier, and removed it for non-notability. I suppose this is less clear by itself as a result. I've added a sentence of perspective. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- "Achebe has been called "Africa's greatest novelist of the 20th century",[178] and many books and essays have been written about his work over the past fifty years." Who called him that?
- I agree that the passive voice is generally yucky, and I avoid it as a rule. However, given that this sentence appears at the beginning of the legacy section, is clearly sourced, and would require an awkward rephrasing to place it in the active voice, I'd argue for leaving it as is. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this quote is just by someone who reviewed Achebe's book, who is not relevant from a wider historical or literature point of view, then it might not be that important. Most writers are considered the greatest writer by someone.
- Done Changed to a different quote, this one from the Man Booker Prize press release. (Surely they're relevant from a wider historical POV.) – Scartol · Talk 10:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- If this quote is just by someone who reviewed Achebe's book, who is not relevant from a wider historical or literature point of view, then it might not be that important. Most writers are considered the greatest writer by someone.
- The "Legacy" section is riddled with weasel words.--Carabinieri 23:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done – sort of. I've gone over and over this section, trying to guess what you mean. Can you be more specific? There are many superlatives in this section (in quotations), but I believe that's simply a function of the man's incredible importance and influence. Everything is carefully cited, and the descriptions have been chosen to reflect the tone of the works being cited.
- The penultimate paragraph, perhaps, is part of your concern – but as the two articles referenced in it serve to demonstrate, it's not a fringe belief, and I feel I've fairly presented the claims. Maybe you can explain where these weasel words are?
- I was, in fact, mostly referring to that paragraph. It might be worth adding one or two notable examples of such scholars to the first sentence. The second sentence seems to present the view that Achebe was "a literary champion of his people..." as fact. Please see this FAC discussion on why, in my view and in that of two other FAC reviewers, it is not appropriate to present a quote like this sentence does.
The first sentence of the second paragraph is also weasel-ish (I love that "word"). Could you add one or two notable examples of such writers?Ok, I see that's done in the rest of the paragraph, sorry :)--Carabinieri 00:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done I removed the quote and rephrased the sentence to read: "Despite his scholarly achievements and the global importance of his work…". – Scartol · Talk 10:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- I was, in fact, mostly referring to that paragraph. It might be worth adding one or two notable examples of such scholars to the first sentence. The second sentence seems to present the view that Achebe was "a literary champion of his people..." as fact. Please see this FAC discussion on why, in my view and in that of two other FAC reviewers, it is not appropriate to present a quote like this sentence does.
- Thank you kindly for your detailed comments. – Scartol · Talk 00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. A fine article, as I said during the peer review. Lovely to see another literature article at FAC. All power to Scartol's elbow.qp10qp 01:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose To comply with WP:ENGVAR, this needs Commonwealth English spellings (this is not optional). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate the desire for consistency, I must respectfully disagree. At the FAC for Vindication of the Rights of Men, you said: "it seems churlish to withhold support on WP:ENGVAR grounds for what remains an extremely well-written article." If you believe this article is not well-written, please let me know; I believe my work above, in peer reviews, and elsewhere on Wikipedia will testify to the fact that I deserve good faith and will do my best to fix the problem.
- But I believe that – insofar as most of the works I read about Mr. Achebe are in AmEng (including, I believe, the biography, though I don't have it in front of me at the moment) – there is no urgent need for conversion of this article into the Commonwealth variation. Indeed, given Mr. Achebe's view that the English language must be reworked and expanded to fit the needs of varying discussions, a case might be argued that AmEng – spellings from a rebellious former colony – might be more well-suited to this article.
- I am of course open to other perspectives and discussion. Thank you for your feedback. – Scartol · Talk 15:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your reasoning :) WP:ENGVAR is crystal clear. Achebe is Nigerian. The official language of Nigeria is English, with Commonwealth spelling. Therefore, articles about Achebe must follow that style. The reason for WP:ENGVAR is to avoid turf wars over spelling variants. It also acknowledges that Nigerian schoolkids looking up a national icons in Wikipedia are entitled to find an article using the spelling they're used to. I hope this clarifies things. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Nigeria hasn't been a British colony since 1960, so I see no reason to enforce British English on this article. Many former British colonies now use a hybrid AmEng/BrEng/local dialect owing mainly to the strong influence of the U.S. in business affairs (and the internet). Besides, Chinua Achebe's life and writing are subjects of international interest, and he currently lives and teaches in the US, so I see no compelling advantage to having it in one dialect or the other. As he has done before, I imagine Roger will accuse me of having a bias in this matter (despite the fact that I have written entire articles in British English when the subject calls for it). Kaldari 16:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about colonial status. Nigeria's constitution specifies English as the official language and provides an official example of the national variety. (I also regularly use American English; see my contributions to the American Battle Monuments Commission series.) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Roger Davies himself has stated that the Joseph Priestley articles does not need to be in BE, since JP emigrated to America and lived there for ten years. Wouldn't the same logic apply to Achebe, whether or not Nigeria had ever been a colony? Awadewit
- Support - Following discussions with Scartol, this is now resolved. If anyone is interested, the discussion is here and mostly here. It seems we each inadvertently irritated the other and communication suffered. Lesson learned there I think. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support An excellent article, full of interesting detail and richly satisfying. For me, this article seems to strike a nearly perfect balance between scholarship and reading pleasure for the lay-person; it's smooth, easily understood, has strong flow, engages the reader and yet works in a wealth of information about its subject. Well done! :) Willow 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This is an exhaustively inclusive and brilliantly intelligent article that has been both well written and put together. Furthermore, it was a joy to read. María (críticame) 13:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
A followup nomination for this A-class/GA article. In the last round, many issues were identified and addressed, particularly sourcing issues and copyediting, and we left off with 8 supports and 3 opposes.
I'll start things off here by pasting in my response to the previous round's last reviewer -- I got cut off at the pass by the bot and didn't get to respond to the commenter officially. Thanks, Melty girl 01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment and suggestions (from Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ))
- "...and a heroic turn as a 1920s Irish revolutionary" - I understand that you've already addressed this, and that it refers to his turn as a heroic character; however, at first glance it seems to read as comment on the brilliance of his performance. Addition: actually, having read a summary of that film's plot, it is unclear what is meant here. Does it refer to the quality of his performance? Because if it doesn't, that may violate WP:NPOV for some.
- Done I thought that the previous discussion of "hero" was in regard to 28 Days Later. Yes, the instance of "heroic" was meant to refer to his turn as the hero character in The Wind That Shakes the Barley. (If you are referring to the current WP synopsis, I can understand your confusion. It has POV problems right now.) I see what you mean though -- I removed the word. (Melty girl)
- In the lead, instead of "London stage", I suggest delinking London (placing elsewhere), and wikilinking the entire phrase to West End theatre (the play was at the Ambassadors in the West End).
- Question: is your issue with the use of the wikilinks on "London" or with the term "London stage" itself? If it's the latter, here's my two things about your suggestion. 1) The sentence reads, "2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." The new sentence would be a little awkward (note emphasis): "2007 saw Murphy in the West End theatre in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine. (I don't think you can say "on the West End theatre.") With this change, you lose the nice contrast between "on ... stage" and "onscreen" as two locations. A whole rewrite would be needed to use "West End Theatre," and it would be longer than this purposely concise sentence. 2) Sorry if my Americanness comes through here, but the theater world is much less familiar to the average reader than the film world is, and I think there's really only one theater district that is identifiable to a broad cross section of English speakers without its city being mentioned, and that's Broadway. I'm afraid that "West End theatre" as a phrase divorced from city or country just doesn't give enough information for enough of our audience. It hasn't been memorialized in the larger pop culture memory the way Broadway has. So for both of these reasons, I think "the London stage" is a better way to put it. And it's a nice phrase, -- "the New York stage" is often used too, despite Broadway's fame, because the phrase is visual/locating. The West End is mentioned later, in the body of the article. (Melty girl)
- Section title, New roles and the future - suggest rename to Recent roles and the future as it discusses projects which are perhaps not quite recent enough to be classified as "new" and adds slight future-proofing to the content.
- Done Good way of putting it. Erik will appreciate that. (Melty girl)
- "In April 2007 (mid-summer in North America), he starred as a physicist-astronaut charged with reigniting the sun in the 2007 sci-fi movie Sunshine." - suggest rewording; at first glance, it's not clear that it's meant that the film was released in April elsewhere, then the US in June. Also suggest removing duplicate "2007" from the end of that sentence.
- Done Nice catch. (Melty girl)
- Jane - suggest full link to Jane magazine to combat potential confusion. I'm in two minds whether the quoted comment from Murphy (saying he'd most like to "make out with" Maggie Gyllenhaal) is too much of a triviality for inclusion, but hey, who wants every article to be dry and lifeless?!
- Done Yes, I thought the fun outweighed the triviality, especially from an actor with zero celeb-type life details to relate. I don't think it hurts. (Melty girl)
- Hope these help. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 21:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very much! Thanks, Melty girl 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for taking notice of my suggestions; I'm happy with your explanations and changes. I'll just clarify one thing; when I referred to wikilinking "London stage" to the West End theatre, I meant you should perhaps consider keeping the same wording, so the sentence would read: ""2007 saw Murphy on the London stage in Love Song and onscreen in science fiction film Sunshine." However, having had a glance at the guidelines, I now see that such use of the pipe trick is frowned upon, so I was wrong, wrong, wrong! Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Very much! Thanks, Melty girl 05:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support after the nominator addressed my suggestions (as seen in the previous archive). The article is comprehensive, well-written, and thoroughly referenced. I am happy to support the article, and I hope that it will continue to evolve with the same standards as the actor progresses with his career! —Erik (talk • contrib)
- Support as before. I helped a bit with sourcing and made some edits for tone. I think this one is across the line now. --JayHenry 02:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, of the previous 8 Supports, 3 Opposes, I was one of the Opposes. All of my objections (most importantly, reliability of sources) have been resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - and now happy to do so; it's a well-written, well-cited, distinctive article deserving of FA status. Best regards, Liquidfinale (Ţ) (Ç) (Ŵ) 07:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - well written and structured, treads the very fine line between being comprehensive and being succinct with great success, is informative, remains focussed on its subject, and is amply supported by sources and quotations. Rossrs 09:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support as before. Ceoil 16:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support - great article! Way to go, Melty girl, you've done a brilliant work. I also think that it would be nice if you added tables for his films and list of works. Shahid • Talk2me 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. About the tables for works, I know that many people favor tables, but I'm in a persistent minority who often favor list formats. I actually started a table for this article a while back, but it took up so much more space on the page that I decided the list format was superior. Please see the discussion in the previous FAC for a fuller discussion of the filmography table issue. Thanks for your support! --Melty girl 17:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
- You're not forced to do that, just entitled to that. And if you feel this version is better, it's your right. Nevertheless, the most important aspect here is the content, and it's very well written. Best regards, Shahid • Talk2me 22:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's fine.
Remark: We don't need four citations for one point: [4][5][6][7] on blue eyes. Select the most reliable one if possible and cite that one. Leranedo 03:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! There are four citations because the fact has been challenged in the past, so backup is needed. Please refer to the previous FAC and the article's talk page for the full history, and see what you think. I think we need at least two citations to support the fact that many critics make special note of his eyes in his work. A previous reviewer felt that more were needed and added two more; some editors didn't believe the assertion when only two citations were present. (BTW, that reviewer's Nexis search turned up 128 good sources.) --Melty girl 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I would be fine with the sources being cut back down to two. I personally don't believe it needs four and just added them to try to help satisfy other reviewers. If we cut back down to two I think we should use The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker as they're the best sources of the four. --JayHenry 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Done... except that now I'm thinking that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article might be a better reference than the LA Times one, since it spends more time on his eyes, talks about both their general fame and role in his work, and has a comment from him about his eyes. Was there a reason you didn't like this article? -Melty girl 03:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I just glanced over the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and I think you're right. I read them awhile ago but they weren't fresh in my mind when I made the comment. I had suggested the LA Times because it's very authoritative on the entertainment industry, but since the MJS talks more about the eyes let's do what you suggest. --JayHenry 03:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, I would be fine with the sources being cut back down to two. I personally don't believe it needs four and just added them to try to help satisfy other reviewers. If we cut back down to two I think we should use The Los Angeles Times and The New Yorker as they're the best sources of the four. --JayHenry 02:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support. I passed the GA for this and was very please with the article then, and it's only gone from strength to strength since. I do have to comment on the broadness of the references relating to the eyes. I'm sure you're all aware of this, but you can actually put more than one source within an individual footnote tag like this:
<ref> Smith, Jones, [http://www.smith.com The Smith Report], published by Smith Enterprises on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br> Brown, Thomas, [http://www.jones.com The Jones Report], published by Jones Family Corp on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007.<br> Banks, Steve, [http://www.banks.com The Banks Report], published by Banks and Company on 31 October, 2007. Retrieved 31 October 2007. </ref>
- To me, it's not an issue with the eyes as the two cited make enough of a fuss and are reputable enough to be valid, but in future, you can umti-cite, if every instance of the reference being needed in the article needs all of the references in question. Well done guys. You've done a great job of improving an article from being a Good Article to a very comfortable example of a Featured Article. --lincalinca 07:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I didn't know you could do that. The only thing I don't like about it is that it would repeat certain citations -- it wouldn't know about the other instances of them within the article. But it is a neat strategy... might have to use it in the future. Thanks for your support and previous help with this article! --Melty girl 15:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I supported it before, and it sure as hell doesn't look worse. -- Mike (Kicking222) 07:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- Support Sorry for the delay, I just saw the renomination, I have many things going on these days and rarely get a chance to check here. I supported before as the article already met all the WP:FACR and with the incorporation of feedback items from reviewers it looks much better. Definitely one of the finest articles on Wikipedia, well done Melty girl. --Kudret abiTalk 16:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.
Self-nomination: I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it is comprehensive, well-referenced, and meets FA criteria. heyjude. 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Comments- lookin' good.A couple of things:
Left a cite tag, sorry but should be dead easy to ref and is a pretty important note. I gotta sleep in a minute.
::horaltic? - needs some sort of explanation on wiktionary link or something.
::Oh yeah, and the other cite tags, needless to say.
More later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support I gave the article a copyedit, but other than a bit of now-fixed grammer I couldn't find anything to really pick at.
If you want something to do, you may want to look at inserting some new images into the article from the Commons and reformatting them. Also, does the picture in the taxobox really need a description? Other than that,great job Jude! Rufous-crowned Sparrow 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)- Thanks! --heyjude. 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Pass & support
- On the basis that it's better than most articles here. Leranedo 09:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- Support Great article. I'd like to see it on the main page. I would like to see syrinx briefly explained in the lead, though. It's not term used everyday speech. It would be a shame if it scared away a reader. --Elliskev 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- I added an explanation for the term syrinx. Thanks for your support! Cheers, heyjude. 17:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: You might try reworking the lead a little to make it sound less like a school report. Right now, too many sentences start "it is..." "it has..." "it does..." Try varying the sentence structure a bit; it will make for a more inviting lead! :) This could be as simple as moving a phrase (e.g. "In flight, it flaps its wings very infrequently" rather than "It flaps its wings very infrequently in flight). MeegsC | Talk 08:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestion. I've changed the structure of several sentences in the intro, and I agree that it makes it much more interesting. Cheers, heyjude. 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good start! Would I step on your toes if I tweaked it a little more? MeegsC | Talk 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not at all, feel free!heyjude. 21:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Another comment. Though the species ranges across two hemispheres, it appears that some of the breeding information is correct only for the northern hemisphere; I have a hard time believing the birds in southern South America would be breeding April-June, in the middle of the winter! :) Do you have any references you can check for that? MeegsC | Talk 23:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- That's a good start! Would I step on your toes if I tweaked it a little more? MeegsC | Talk 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. Single subsections are unsightly. The logic is this: If you don't have more than one subsection, it doesn't make sense to make a section for it. So either make a section with two subsections, or one or two sections, without subsections. Thanks. 82.71.48.158 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done
- Support Great job. I'd like to see some of the subspecies broken out in future articles!--Mike Searson 00:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.