Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a log of featured articles from Wikipedia: Featured article candidates. Discussions about failed nominations are located at archived nominations.

Candidacy discussion about articles promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2006. That page is transcluded below for your convenience. Summary logs of articles promoted by year are also maintained, see for example Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2006.

2006 /October 2006, 44 promoted /September 2006, 48 promoted /August 2006, 50 promoted /July 2006, 53 promoted /June 2006, 43 promoted /May 2006, 45 promoted /April 2006, 41 promoted /March 2006, 44 promoted /February 2006, 35 promoted /January 2006, 43 promoted 2005 /December 2005, 36 promoted /November 2005, 37 promoted /October 2005, 34 promoted /September 2005, 36 promoted /August 2005, 45 promoted /July 2005, 37 promoted /June 2005, 40 promoted /May 2005, 33 promoted /April 2005, 31 promoted /March 2005, 46 promoted /February 2005, 37 promoted /January 2005, 24 promoted 2004 /December 2004, 31 promoted /November 2004, 37 promoted /October 2004, 34 promoted /September 2004, 48 promoted /August 2004, 44 promoted /July 2004, 36 promoted /June 2004, 17 promoted /May 2004, 28 promoted /April 2004, 18 promoted /March 2004, 8 promoted /February 2004, 15 promoted /January 2004, 7 promoted 2003 /December 2003, 31 promoted /November 2003, 8 promoted /October 2003 and before, 75 promoted

Contents 1 Full current month log 1.1 Dundee 1.2 Alain Prost 1.3 Abu Musab al-Zarqawi 1.4 Extratropical cyclone 1.5 Great Fire of London 1.6 Stegosaurus 1.7 Bette Davis 1.8 West Wycombe Park 1.9 Lead(II) nitrate 1.10 Fin Whale 1.11 Girl Scouts of the USA 1.12 Basiliscus 1.13 Hurricane Fabian 1.14 1994 San Marino Grand Prix 1.15 Pierre Rossier 1.16 W. S. Gilbert 1.17 Boshin War 1.18 Influenza 1.18.1 Oct 25 1.18.2 Oct 28 1.19 Gilberto Silva 1.20 Battle of the Tenaru 1.21 Platypus 1.22 "Weird Al" Yankovic 1.23 Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo 1.24 Tourette syndrome 1.25 West Bengal 1.26 Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina 1.27 Hurricane Gustav (2002) 1.28 Sound film 1.29 History of the board game Monopoly 1.30 Syed Ahmed Khan 1.31 Belgrade

[edit] Full current month log

view - edit - history

[edit] Dundee

I'm nominating this article which myself and several others have spent a lot of time on bringing up to standard. I believe it's now ready for FAC. It is comprehensive and well referenced. Has recently been through its second peer review and all the suggestions were addressed  YDAM TALK 14:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

*COMMENT Stuff fromt the first FAC round is mixed in here! Rlevse 19:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC) my mistake, sorry. Rlevse 00:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I found four spelling mistakes 'recieve', 'benifits', Parliment, and the hilarious 'navel bombardment' and there may be others. I suggest that in future you copy any article that you edit into a word processing program and run the spell-check. I always think that a poorly spelt article, as opposed to my speciality of typos, rapidly blows the credibility of the author. Does William McGonagall really deserve a place in the summary as the most important person to have been born in Dundee? And the first person mentioned, despite the name of Scott, was actually born in Devon. 'Jam' (twice), 'jute' (twice) and 'journalism' do not need capitals in the middle of a sentence. (Was the wonderful 'preserve' pun intentional?) There is much inelegant wording that would benefit from another editor. eg 'Full train of passengers' might be better as a 'train full of passengers'. 'Constitutes' = 'is'. 'Distribution' ='variety'. 'Dundee employment' = 'Employment in Dundee'. I thought the first computer was built by Tommy Flowers at Bletchley Park. What was 'jute control'? 'Enterprise Zone' could have a wiki-link. 'Albert square' should have both words capitalised. I would say 80% of the way there. JMcC 17:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I have incorporated most of your suggestions and I will fix the lead soon. The sentence about the first computer refers to the first one that was actually built in Dundee, not that the first one ever was built in Dundee. I will fix that sentence soon to make it more obvious. (oh and yes that pun was deliberate. I will take it out if you think it's inappropriate)  YDAM TALK 18:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to address most of your remaining concerns. About the lead, Scott is mentioned in order to provide the context about the RSS discovery. Dundee is known as the "City of Discovery" and the RSS discovery needs to be mentioned to explain why. Mention of Scott could be omitted but it would be reducing the context of the ship. I'll happily remove it though it though if you think it shouldn't be there. As for McGonagall his association with Dundee is by far the most prominent then any other literary figure. I do feel that the mention in the lead is proportional to it's importance to the city. That aside are there any other flaws that need to be addressed.  YDAM TALK 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose—Much better Tony 14:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)1a. This scores 3/10 for writing, IMO, where 8/10 might be the required "professional" standard. There are lots of problems in the prose throughout; a consistent theme is the uncomfortable combining of ideas into single sentences. Let's take a look at the lead.
  • "Dundee is a royal burgh and the mottos of the city are 'Dei Donum' (Latin: 'Gift Of God') and 'Prudentia et Candore' ('With Thought And Purity').[2] Typically only the latter is used for civic purposes. The area was first settled by the Picts in the Iron age and the settlement became a royal burgh in 1191." Disorganised: we read that it's a royal burgh, uncomfortably combined in a single sentence with the mottos; then a stubby sentence extending the statement on mottos; then way back to the initial settlement, then to the year in which it was made a royal burgh.
  • "During the industrial revolution, the city grew rapidly with the influence of the local jute industry, and Dundee became known nationally as the city of 'jam, jute and journalism', after its three main industries." We have jute, then a national reputation that includes jute among three main industries. Are we to assume that journalism and jam can be dated back to the industrial revolution? It's unclear. If not, deal with them in separate sentences.
  • "Dundee is known as being the home of ..."—Spot the redundant word.
  • "The city has continued to see a decline in population since the start of the 1970s." This "has seen" expression is becoming a little tired in WPian articles. Try a plain, simple statement: "Dundee's population has declined since the start of the 1970s." Kind of odd that you give reasons for the historical increase in population, but not for its decline.
  • "The Royal Scottish National Orchestra also regularly play in the city's Caird hall." It's not a cricket team, so it would be more usual to say "plays" (not mandatory, I suppose). Why "also"? There's no mention of other places where the Orchestra plays. Remove the word. Shouldn't "hall" start with "H"?
  • "A significant number of the population are on low income or receive state benefits with more than half of the city's council wards amongst Scotland's 10% most deprived.[7] and less than half of housing is owner-occupied." Ungrammatical in two ways: you can't say "number of the population"; is that meant to be a full-stop before [7]? And the last clause should be the same grammatical construction as the "with" clause. "Half of housing" needs a deictic ("the"?). "Amongst" should be just "among", unless you want to be elaborate and formal. If you have to use "with" as an additive link, for heaven's sake, put a comma before it.

I don't usually say this, but you need to take a look at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a:_redundancy_exercises and the bit on "Smoothly integrating ideas into a sentence, at User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Sentences. Can you search for copy-editors to collaborate? Start with the edit histories of related FAs and other similar articles. Tony 03:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks a lot for those comments, I was beginning to think this nomination had been entirely forgotten. It's been a while since I did any major editing to this article so I did a heavy bit of copy-editing myself with the help of those links you provided, though I will still look for another copy-editor. I've addressed the specific examples you raised and hopefully most of the other flaws in the article. Perhaps you could take a quick scan and give me an opinion on its current state  YDAM TALK 21:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks better, but still more to do, for example:
  • "l'ess than half of homes"—"fewer than half of the homes in Dundee".
  • Why are the plain years linked? This dilutes high-value links that you want readers to follow. For example, do I really want to know that 2004 was "a leap year starting on Thursday", that it was the International Year of Rice, or that an apartment building collapsed in some place in Turkey that year? I kid you not, that's how it starts. I'd delink all plain years (as opposed to dates)
  • "its marmalade and journalism industries"—bit odd to lump them together in that way. Try "its marmalade industry and its journalism."
  • "giving Dundee its name as the city of 'jam, jute and journalism"—try "epithet" instead of "name".
• "between the years 1991 to 2001"—Remove two words as redundant.
  • The caption "Original Tay Bridge ..." Should start with "The original ...".

What about another WPian to sift through it carefully? An hour by a good copoy-editor should be enough. Tony 12:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for those suggestions I have implemented the specific examples you mentioned. The article had actually already received a copy-edit by another wikipedian this morning, though I will endeavour to find another copy-editor as stringent as yourself and inform you here when done.  YDAM TALK 20:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I finally managed to get someone to copyedit it. I got User:Rama's Arrow who had worked on Dhaka the most recent FA on another city to take a look at it, I hope his edits have improved the article.  YDAM TALK 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I've reorganized the format and cleaned up much of the prose, which was littered with minor grammatical errors. I would always defer to Tony or Spangineer but in my assessment this article is ready for FA status. I will crosscheck to make sure further errors are rooted out. Rama's arrow 21:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Much improved. I admit to a quick edit in places, with which I hope you agree in the main. Check that I have not altered the meaning of anything by accident. I am puzzled that out of the 10 secondary schools, 11 are Catholic. Sounds like Enron accounting. Are there 10 secondary state schools and a further 11 Catholic schools? JMcC 14:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be Catholic schools as separate from secular secondary schools. Dunno know, Rama's arrow 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for that error, I don't know how it managed to slip through. Thanks for catching it though. Those figures originally came from the information here [1] guess I must have not been concentrating when I counted.  YDAM TALK 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A look at the history reveals that the mistake in numbering came from when I took out references to the former and latter from that sentence and explicitly referred to the type of school but managed to get them mixed up in the process, D'oh)  YDAM TALK 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment you may want to trim the external link farm to support WP:EL, which most violates currently. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done  YDAM TALK 21:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I think it meets the criteria. Trebor 19:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alain Prost

A lot of work has been put into improving the article. It met GA standards after some corrections; I feel that it has reached FA now because I feel that everything has been referenced and that I've covered Prost's rivalry with Ayrton Senna pretty well.--Skully Collins 11:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Support and Nominate --Skully Collins 20:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Good job. But you need to work on the prose in the middle of the article. It reads as if you are giving a time line of his career: in 1980 he did this; in 1981 he did this; in 1982 he did this.... It gets choppy and tedious. It doesnt hurt to combine years; you already have grouped them under several 'themes' like "1980: McLaren." You don't need to separate every point, every year. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Well that's what I did with the Damon Hill article. But I guess that fact that Hill only had seven seasons in Formula One to Prost's 12 seasons. But the reason it's split like that is for the sake of the reader, like if somebody wishs to view Prost's actions in the 1989 season, then it's easier to find. I'll leave it for now and see what others think--Skully Collins 12:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Well then, if sections worked for that article, it may work for this one. Give me a while to reread it and I'll give you my vote. OK? Orane (talk • cont.) 16:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Yeah, sure. Take your time.--Skully Collins 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written and comprehensive. Meets all criteria. Orane (talk • cont.) 02:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and meets criteria. Leidiot 09:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comment Oppose many section stubs, and I'm worried about several of the sources used in the article, YouTube isn't a realible source per WP:RS and I'm not sure about Prostfan.com nither which is a fan site, can you use the two written books in further reading as sources. Some sloppy writing in places as well like make-or-break, passive voice. Could use some trimming from 56KB. No proof that Image:AlainProstGP.jpg is copyrighted free use nither. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The YouTube source is a video of an Official review of the 1993 season, while ProstFan.com looks pretty reliable, as the profile page has hardly any POVs IMO. As for the other two points (Writing & the Image) I'll look into it later.--Skully Collins 07:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Removed Image:AlainProstGP.jpg. Can you give me some examples of "Sloppy Writing" and "Section Stubs" please? --Skully Collins 07:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Opps on the section stubs, I confused all those years as them, crossed out, as for the sloppy writting, some sections do need a copyedit including the Rivalry with Ayrton Senna section, crossed out to comment. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-written the rivalry with Senna section. Alexj2002 15:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very informative yet still not overlong. Meets the criteria.--Diniz 17:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

This article is rated A and I beleive the content in this article is good enough to be a FAC. Since his death, the article has stabilized and now I am submitting it for FAC. Mercenary2k 01:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Support - Wiki-newbie 13:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Sections "Alleged links to al-Qaeda" & "Alleged links to Saddam Hussein" seem like large blocks of text, can these be broken down into smaller sections or some of the images moved into them?

• Done. Let me know if you are satisfied with these changes. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Other incidents" section is lacknig sources for all points.

• Done. Got them all cited. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some sections contain citations in the center, is it because the sources doesnt cover all of the paragraph or is the citation in the wrong place?

• Done. Fixed them all. Citations appear at the end of each sentence. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• The biography section contains red links toward the bottom, can the wiki links be removed or stubs created for these people?

• Done. De-wikified some links. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some dates seem to be wikilinked and some not, this should be made uniform throughout the article.

• Done. All dates are wikilinked. If I missed some please let me know. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Succession" section has no sources.

• Done. Added sources. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Claims of death" section, May 24th note, paragraph contains no sources.

• Done. Added sources. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Reports of Zarqawi's death, detention and injuries" -> "Missing leg" -> paragraph 2, Newsweek is italicized, this seems to be repeated once or twice but not consistently. This should be made uniform.

• Done. All Magazines, Newspapers are italized. If I missed any let me know and I will change them. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Many paragraphs made up of 1 or two sentences in the Biography section, can some of these be merged and written in a paragraph form.

I will give it a more detailed read over later. --NuclearZer0 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Fixed the biography Paragraphs and merged them into bigger paragraphs. Mercenary2k 10:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Second paragraph in Biography has no citation.
• Cause of death at end of biography has no citation.

Nice work on the other stuff Mercenary2k, you may want to just read through it and check to see if the ends of paragraphs are cited. --NuclearZer0 12:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Added 20 new citations throughout this article and made sure that each paragraph was cited. Let me know if you are satisfied with this. Mercenary2k 22:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support pending someone with editorial skills giving it a read over. Nice work again Mercenary2k --NuclearZer0 16:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Great article. There are a few points that I hesitate to correct myself; if anyone goes ahead and corrects them, I will support the nomination.

• There are a few errors in the references causing the template name to appear, not exactly sure why this happens. For example, refs 8, 10, 12.

• Done. Fixed these errors. There were also some references which repeated so I added a reference name and joined them together. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are far too many wikilinks: many links to irrelevant subjects and many articles which are linked more than once. I have removed some of these (Jordan for example was linked about 10 times) but there are many more. Please see WP:CONTEXT.

• Done. You are right, there were a lot of repetition. I removed a lot of them. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "According to the Bush administration, the training camp specialized in poisons and explosives." Is there a particular reason that this claim is attributed to the Bush administration at large?

• Done. Changed the wording of this. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Zarqawi is believed to have had two wives...": This paragraph needs to be rewritten.

• Done. The paragraph was written in a confusing manner. Re-wrote it. Mercenary2k 23:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. This paragraph is still weird. It says nothing about the first wife and the stuff about the second wife is pretty trivial. --Zvika 14:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

--Zvika 19:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Critique - Concerns. These are my concerns:

• Mainly prose issues. For instance, "Post U.S. Invasion of Iraq" is full of huuuge quotes. The same with "Alliance with al-Qaeda" and some other sections. I don't think that this is good for the article flow. There is almost no prose there! Just quotes! I don't think this is recommended for a FA. That is why I think that these sections need rewriting so that the quotes to be shrinked wherever needed or to be better incoroporated in the prose. Minor thng: I think that italics are not recommended in quotes.

Comment. I removed all the italics from the quotes. As for the quotes themselves, I don't think there is anything wrong with having them as they very nicely summarize parts of this article. If I had to remove the quotes, I will probably have to re-write the quotes with a citation on each sentence. So I think this avoids all this hassle. Mercenary2k 10:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Other incidents" is listy. It should be turned into proper prose.

• Done. Re-wrote that section into a paragraph format. Mercenary2k 09:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Reportedly captured and released" is far too stubby. Merge or expand.

• Done. Expanded the section. Mercenary2k 09:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• "See also" section should be trimmed. This two existing links should easily be linked inside the main prose. So, why do why need this section? To relink already linked things?

• Done. Got rid of this section. Mercenary2k 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

And something else I want to point out: According to FAC "Before nominating an article, you may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review." Peer-reviews are not a prerequisite for FA status, but wouldn't it be better if the editors of the article had got some review-feedback before coming here? I think they lost a chance to have the article already much imroved before coming here. Thanks!--Yannismarou 21:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. As fas as the italics are concerned I quote from MoS:

"There is normally no need to put quotations in italics unless the material would otherwise call for italics (emphasis, use of non-English words, etc.). Indicate whether using the italics in the original text or whether they were added later."

• Done. I removed all italics from the quotes.

Until this issue and the other more important issues I've mentioned are settled, I obviously object. By the way something is wrong with this nomination: When I try to edit it through WP:FAC I go to an empty page! I can only edit it through Abu Musab article. Please, fix this problem that may discourage other reviewers to edit.--Yannismarou 08:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. Fixed this problem. Mercenary2k 09:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Turn to very weak object, because I still think that these successive long quotes in "Alleged links to al-Qaeda" interrupt the prose and in "Other incidents", instead of having this huuuge paragraph, we could have a nicer layout. But, of course, I admit that the article, in general, is well-written and well-citated.--Yannismarou 10:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Semi-Done. I fixed up the Other incident section by dividing it up into parts and I am gonna work on the huge quotes to trim them down. Mercenary2k 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC) and I fixed up the long quotes section. Let me know if you are satisfied with this. Mercenary2k 13:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Support Great Work! Flubeca 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but reading this article more closely, I have to object. The biography section is a lot better (although see my new comment). However, the Terrorist and guerrilla attacks section is suspiciously short. Surely there are many more incidents outside Iraq performed by this guy. Some of them (the Radisson Amman plot) is even mentioned in the biography. Also I bet there is some stuff from the Afghanistan period. I still think this article can make it to FA, but I agree with Yannismarou — it should first be sent to peer review. --Zvika 14:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I'd like to some answer to Zvika's content remarks, before I decide if I'll change my vote to support.--Yannismarou 08:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I expanded his section about the wife and added more clarification. I expanded his terrorist attacks section by adding more terrorist attacks he was involved inside and outside of Iraq. I think all issues have been addressed. Mercenary2k 00:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extratropical cyclone

This is without a doubt a Self-Nomination, as I have put in a substantial nuber of edits to this article (currently my most editid article actually) along with Thegreatdr, just to make it clear. I'm nominating it as it has come a long way since it's successful GA review, with stylistic and content contributions, as well as additional sources. I believe that as a scientific subject that would normally be explained in an incridibly complicated and jargony manner, it is presented in terms that are about as simple as they can possibly get without loosing the encyclopedic standard of accuracy it deserves. It covers every significant facet of Extratropical cyclones, and the language used has a minimum of redundancy with an optimal flow. The images (and their captions) are informative and descriptive, and tie into their appropriate sections well. Those items of jargon which are nessecary have either been explained, or wikilinked to a page/section explaining the term. I honestly believe that it meets FAC criteria, and while there may possibly be one or two issues in places, I don't feel that there's anything there that needs significant and exhaustive work. Please accept this nomination, and I look forward to reading (and responding to (in words or in work!) your responses where appropriate. --Crimsone 20:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per above. CrazyC83 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments From a user who has very little background in meteorology.
  • An extratropical cyclone, sometimes inaccurately called a cyclone, is a synoptic scale low pressure weather system that has neither tropical nor polar characteristics, being connected with fronts and horizontal gradients in temperature and dew point otherwise known as "baroclinic zones". That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").
  • These are the everyday phenomena which, along with anticyclones, drive the weather over much of the Earth. I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?
  • I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.
  • I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.
  • The figure given by the study of the Northern Hemisphere may call into question that yielded by the study of the Southern Hemisphere. How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.
  • I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Gzkn 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That first sentence is certainly a mouthful (and confusing to me, especially that "being").

Will get back to that one. Done

I was confused about what the word "these" was referring to. Extratropical cyclones? Depressions and lows?

Done.

I'd suggest covering the effects of these cyclones in the lead. Also, the last sentence of the lead (to me at least) is pretty jargondy and confusing.

Done, except for that last sentence. I don't know how that could be better put, but I'll think hard about it.

I'd recommend putting the satellite photo of Cyclone Florence at the top, rather than the current, more technical one.

Intense extratropical cyclones can be difficult to recognise apart from subtropical ones for lay people looking at sattelite photo's. I don't know about those in the US, though I've seen something similar ofer there, but on TV weather forecasts in the UK, a map like is often shown and would be recognised instantly for what it was. It's also taught in highschool geography. It's there really because it's the best and clearest descriptive image of what an extratropcal cyclone is.

Ah I see. Yeah, I definitely would not be able to recognize it as such (I'm from the U.S.) I'll leave this up to more meteorological minded people to debate. Gzkn 02:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How come it's the southern study's results that are called into question? Why not the other way around? Elaborate here.

It appears that the source for the southern study had been incorrectly read. What it actually says though is slightly more complicated. lol

I notice that the section Extratropical transition includes metereological words/phrases that are italicized. Why here, and nowhere else?

Done - there was no valid reason for it.

Thanks very much for the input :) Crimsone 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that was quick...I got interrupted in the middle of my reading so I actually still hadn't gone through the entire article. Will post further comments below:

- "warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

- Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

- This theory still retains much merit over continental landmasses. I'm assuming this means when the cyclones are over continental landmasses and not when the theory is...

- Might want to give the first names of Shapiro and Keyser and some information on who they are.

- A warm seclusion is the mature phase of the extratropical cyclone lifecycle conceptualized by Shapiro and Keyser after the ERICA field experiment of the late 1980s, which produced observations of intense marine cyclones that indicated an anomalously warm low-level thermal structure, secluded (or surrounded) by a bent-back warm front and a coincident chevron-shaped band of intense surface winds. Quite a long sentence.

- The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

- OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

- First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

- OK. All done for real! :)

Gzkn 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"warm core" is redlinked (does it even need a link though?)

Not really. I've removed it :) Done

Italicized words: subtropical cyclogenesis, bomb, cyclonic. Also saw quotation marks identifying metereological phrases. Do these phrases need to be set apart in some way for the readers? If so, keep the style consistent (I'd prefer italics).

I think the only reason for it is to set meteorological terms apart from the text to avoid confusing the reader. Of course, it may not be nessecary, and I've not seen it elsewhere on wikipedia. I'll leave it to whatever consensus says. Italics have been removed for now to maintain consistency of style. Done

Quite a long sentence.

I agree. I'll see if it can be shortened. Split sentence into two sentences. Done

The first, third, and fourth paragraphs of Warm seclusion lack sources.

I (or somebody else) will take a look. I've added sources for two of those aragraphs. For now, I've left a "citation needed" tag on the third in the hope that another editor might know the source. If not, I'll continue looking myself. Done.

OK, so in the very beginning, it says that extratropical cyclones are sometimes inaccurately called cyclones. I see a lot of usage of just "cyclone" in the text of this article though. Are you sure that all these instances refer to cyclones and not extratropical cyclones?

Cyclone is a bit of a 'catch all term. It's quite common in meteorology or common language alike in such a situation to refer to the full descriptive term at first to ensure that people are looking at the right thing, and then to use the general term from then on. Really speaking though, they are the most "basic" type, and so are sometimes incorrectly considered as just Cyclones for that reason. That's not what the article is doing however - after beign defined as "extratropical", each time the word cyclone is mentioned without a qualifying term, it refers to the type of cyclone the reader is reading about. To add "extratorpical" in every iteration of the word cyclone whould be quite tiresom on the reader, and make the subject appear (aesthically speaking) very complex.

First sentence of Severe Weather: might want to link "lee troughs" to something, as a layperson (like me!) is unlikely to know what they are.

No, I must confess, I have no clue either. Maybe another editor will. a quick google tells me what they are. I will wikilink it. Done.Crimsone 03:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remember, red links definately are not disqualifying for featured article quality. Warm core is a needed article in my opinion, or an article distinguishing cold core/warm core systems. Maybe that red link should stay. -Runningonbrains 08:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Questions Why is there so much on cyclogenesis in the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section...seems out of place. Also, I removed the reference to Shapiro and Keyser as it doesnt even seem relevant, so that should no longer be an issue. -Runningonbrains 09:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've actually not had much to do with the Surface pressure/Wind distribution section other than sources and stylistic issues. Being part of the structure section, it's trying to explain how the windfield changes. Of course, that's hard to do without mentioning anything to do with cyclogenesis. There is a lot of repetition though, and so I am taking a look presently. I honestly don't know though what I can seperate out and remove, so I don't know whetehr I will be able to make any significant change to that section myself. As I said though, I'm taking a look now.Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

After much effort, I believe I have now resolved this issue. Please feel free to say otherwise If you still see a problem with it. Crimsone 20:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The Severe Weather section is quite US-centric (I removed a reference to UK tornadoes because it was incorrect, and the correct statement isnt very relevant). Anyone have any ideas/international examples? -Runningonbrains 10:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The widespread severe floods of Europe a few years ago may be an example. In terms of national examples though, the Great Storm of 1987 may be fitting, and readily available on Wiki, being particularly potent as an actual Extratropical cyclone causing widespread damage at enormous cost. Crimsone 18:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Added sourced paragraph on the Great Storm of 1987 to section.Crimsone 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Could some of the out-of-place sections be split into new articles?? --SunStar Net 23:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really see any out of place sections in the article. Could you please explain? Crimsone 23:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. About the italics: I was the one who added them, following the style used on Eye (cyclone). Mostly, I've italicized all meteorological terms that do not have an article, and that are defined within a section; the same is done in the copyedited sections of Tropical cyclone, and I'll do the rest of that article as soon as I can get around to it. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I am satisfied with the improvements. Well done, everyone. -Runningonbrains 20:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Me, too. I'm too lazy to strike out my individual comments above though. :) The only thing I see is "£1.2 billion" could use the US dollar amount in parentheses. Anyway, congrats on a well written technical article that is remarkably clear to laypersons. Gzkn 06:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I hope you don't mind, but I've just saved you that particular effort and struck out the answered comments - just for clarities sake :) Crimsone 15:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks! Gzkn 00:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Fire of London

Selfnom. This article existed, but I have pretty much rewritten it from scratch (re-using the nice first sentence). That's not because it was so terrible or anything, but it was basically unsourced, as well as a bit fragmentary and uneven. Bunchofgrapes drew the fine maps. Bishonen | talk 06:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

• Support I must say that I eyed this many times on RC patrol and wondered why such a well written article remained in user space. Well written, well referenced, well illustrated. Looks fabulous -- Samir धर्म 06:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent. Borisblue 07:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose
  • "squalid suburban slums surrounding" Made me want to support instead. :D
  • Question: would it make more sense to use "the city" instead of "the City"?
    • Comment The city of London and the City of London are not the same thing. Although the usage is odd, it is correct. MLilburne 10:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, thanks. :) Ignorant American --> Gzkn 11:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Co-ordinated firefighting efforts were simultaneously getting underway... avoid forms of "to get".
  • In the event the medieval street plan was basically reconstructed, and still prevails today. Is there a missing comma after event? Also, should it be "after the fire" instead of "In the event"?
  • Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up. By the 1660s, London was by a huge margin the largest city in Britain, estimated at 300,000 inhabitants[5]—10% of the population of the entire country[6]—which made it the third largest metropolis of the Western world, surpassed only by Constantinople and Paris. This one is especially rambling: London, for seven centuries an old Roman settlement, had become progressively more overcrowded inside its defensive City wall, and had pushed outwards beyond it into squalid extramural slums and former manorial provinces such as Shoreditch, Holborn, and Southwark, and reached to physically incorporate the originally independent city of Westminster. Yikes! :) The City was then as now the commercial heart of the capital, the largest market and busiest port in the kingdom, dominated and politically controlled by the trading and manufacturing classes, including skilled craftsmen of all kinds as well as tradesmen and wealthy merchants.
  • The definition of "the City proper" could be moved up to where it appears earlier.
  • Put inline citations at the end of sentences.
  • A variety of unsourced statements. Some random examples: Pepys comments in his diary on how nobody was trying to put it out, but instead fleeing from it in fear, hurrying "to remove their goods, and leave all to the fire". Later, In the early evening, with his wife and some friends, Pepys went again on the river "and to the fire up and down, it still encreasing."
  • Consider putting the references into two columns.
  • Overall, very well-researched though! It's close to FA in my opinion, but not quite there.

Gzkn 08:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Unsourced statements: fixed. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, especially in the case of a day-by-day description largely based on diaries (Pepys' and Evelyn's); the date itself, which is always apparent from my narrative, stands in for a page reference to the diary. The date not only saves a footnote, but is actually better than a page reference, since the date is the same in any edition the reader may be using, and also much easier to locate on a webpage.

The footnote numbers already are at the ends of sentences where possible; but where clarity requres is, they're in mid-sentence. It looks ugly and I've tried to avoid it, but clarity is king, and it's standard academic practice, too.

I'm afraid I don't agree with the stylistic suggestions, as long sentences don't in my opinion equal "rambling" —roundabout, directionless, wordy , digressive, disconnected—sentences. For my taste, the sentences you quote seem directionfull and connected. I believe chopping them up to would result in poorer flow, not better. But that's me, YMMV. I don't personally hold with any mecanical embargo on the word "get", either. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

• Support I'll make the required edits to change it if there's consensus for what's mentioned above. SunStar Net 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An extremely impressive article. MLilburne 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: From the point of view of prose (tone, variation of sentence structure, variation of verbs, avoidance of serial to-be verbs, well-chosen adjectives, vivid description, structures that move the reader quickly toward points), this is one of the finest articles we've had on FAC. From the point of view of the subject matter, it is one of the most important events in London history, and yet it is covered fairly ("fully" would need a book). From the point of view of scholarship, the article employs up to date references, avoids the tired "it's all for the best" stories that riddle most accounts, takes account of the dispossessed and uncounted, and sets the central event in a local historical context. From the point of view of appearance on the page, it is illustrated well. Geogre 12:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just excellent. However, a few things need fixing. The date format in the first caption is different from that in the first para. The second para is crying out for one or two references. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "i. e." needs to be "i.e.,". A pity not to get someone who's unfamiliar with the text to run through it. Then it could be used as a model WP article. Tony 12:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping sombody would fix the mysteries of WP dating, yes. But I believe that crying sound you hear from the lead section is rather because any footnotes have been forced on it, considering that it summarizes stuff which is properly sourced below. The reason I put in any notes at all in the lead was that I thought some of the relevant notes below were awfully far away, mainly those in the "Deaths and destruction" section at the end. The question whether or not to have notes in the lead section is a vexed one, without consensus AFAIK. I believe, for instance, that Raul654 is on record recently stating that he thinks inlines are unnecessary in the lead. Bishonen | talk 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC).

I guess the crux of the matter is whether the information is referenced further down. If so, not a problem. (I wasn't on the look-out when I read through the article, I must admit, and I was guided to make that comment because other paragraphs in the lead are referenced.) PS As usual, I didn't check who nominated the article when I made the comment: it comes up to your usual extremely high standards, and despite my quibbles, is a pleasure to read. Tony 14:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object; excellent article in almost every respect, but the date formatting really must be fixed. The first sentence, in particular, has such an absurdly convoluted form ("Sunday 2 to Wednesday 5 September 1666") that it's difficult to understand what it actually means on first reading it. Kirill Lokshin 13:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Krill, I actually don't mind it—this is a common British/Australian format for dates. Perhaps just adding another "September" after "2" might satisfy your misgivings? Or change to the "nd", "th" method, although I prefer the numeral alone. Tony 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, another "September" would be an improvement (although, if we're going to do that, we may as well add the needed links for date preferences to work); should it have some commas in there, though (i.e. "Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666")? Kirill Lokshin 14:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems to have been fixed, so support from me. Kirill Lokshin 17:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. There was a "covering note" for Pepys, stating that "All quotes from and details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary", which had gotten shunted too far down on the page in some structural shuffle. I've now moved it back up to the first use of a fact from Pepys' diary, where it belongs. IMO, such covering notes are a good way of keeping the number of footnotes down, That logic works fine for a static article, but not for a dynamic encyclopedia that anyone can edit. You could be hit by the proverbial truck tomorrow, and years from now, all editors currently involved in the article could be gone from Wiki, leaving new editors to try to determine which statements are covered by that sentence and what was added in the interim. Citations should reflect the dynamic nature of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Begging your pardon, but that's just silly. Samuel Pepys is singular. There is only one work by him, and there is universal agreement on the text. I don't even think one needs to cite the diary at all, because anything attributed to Pepys is from the diary. There simply is nothing else, has been nothing else, and, if there ever is something else, it will be that which will require citation. Any scholarly book you read will simply refer to facts taken from Pepys, much as one would from Anthony Wood. The covering note is a belt with suspenders, and you are suggesting that it's just too insecure? Honestly, there is just one Pepys. Geogre 15:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm usually a completist when it comes to citations, but when it comes to Pepys' diary, citing a day is more than enough even for me. MLilburne 19:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Par for the course of Bishonen's work. Highly re-searched and well written. I don't understand the quibbles above as the article meets all criteria more than adequatly Giano 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An outstanding example of the type of work Wikipedia should produce. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. An excellent work, especially with the pending daughter article on the aftermath and rebuilding. (As an aside, I note we're missing an article on Wren's churches, which we should probably have...) Shimgray | talk | 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We are missing it, but we do have Category:Christopher Wren London churches Giano 20:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Normally, I would ask that images be reduced in size and have a standardized size throughout, but something about this article demands a larger image in the lead and a mixture of others elsewhere. Superb.--MONGO 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article undoubtably meets the criteria. With more text than most it is very well written. It is well illustrated using free images (I'd like to see the pano image with a live link to the original or the image displayed on the image page nm I didn't see it, maybe it should be at the Commons though). It is well referenced and from a variety of sources. It has an interesting topic and finite scope - with only a few days recieving most of the coverage it has enormous depth while suggesting more to be written. I wish the opposers had commented (or edited their concerns), as oppose is such a strong term for what seem like minor points of contention. DVD+ R/W 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• An admirable discourse, as one Chief Secretary to the Admiralty used to say. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 22:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Outstanding article. If being hypercritical, it ends a little suddenly and could do with a photo of The Monument. --Dweller 09:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Super-duper Support, this article was the original reason I first viewed Wikipedia. It wasn't all that stunning, at the time. Nice job improving it :D Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I have done a light copyedit - not that it needed very much - and have left a few minor comments on the talk page, but this is superb. I understand that there is intended to be a separate "rebuilding of London" article, which explains why the last section is so short (and in any event, this article is about the fire, not what came next). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Much better: Outrigger and Aloan seem to have picked up all of the ce needs I noticed. Were it not for recent firefighter deaths in the USA due to arson, I would thoroughly enjoy reading this superb article. I still can't support this citation style, though (example, "This subsection is based on Tinniswood, 1–11, unless otherwise indicated.") This method leaves the article open to problems down the road if the original authors and editors become uninvolved, and new editors make unsourced additions. Some may argue we can always chech history or revert should that happen, but FAR experience shows this is easier said than done when the original editors go missing. At least three things could help resolve my concerns: 1) add at minimum a cite to each paragraph (using named refs, that will not overburden the article), 2) cite any data, numbers or extraordinary claims (example, I noted that London as the third largest metropolis after Constantinople and Paris isn't cited), and 3) expand these footnotes to be more specific to the text they cover, in the event sections or text are moved in the future (example: The subsection London in the 1660s is based on Tinniswood, 1-11, unless otherwise indicated). Sandy (Talk) 15:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Not to be pedantic, but the featured article criteria seem to indicate you should judge based on the current state of an article, not based on fears about a hypothetical future state. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Also, not to be impolitic, but go ahead and object on your private criteria, if you choose, but they're not FA criteria. Your version of "copy editing" is demonstrably incorrect, and many of the changes you are applauding violate grammatical rules, stylistic best practice, and common sense. At least two of these should be defended. Geogre 13:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Drat, there goes the neighborhood: a perfectly fine candidacy turns argumentative. George, these copy editing "changes [I am] applauding" are curious, since I didn't specify any. When I came to discuss the ce issues I had seen in my partial read of a hardcopy the night before, they had already been addressed: please take up any other ce issues with Aloan and Outrigger. I have suggested some exceedingly trivial tweaks that will satisfy me that the current 1c requirement is met: it's hard to imagine why changing wording like "this section" to specifically say which section is problematic. Since the Hilary Putnam debacle, I try to avoid FACs which turn argumentative: it would have been a pleasure to support this article, I haven't lodged an Oppose, and the article is doing just fine without my support. Molehill --> mountain, not worth it. Best, and congratulations to Bishonen on a fine article, Sandy (Talk) 17:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Amazing that I could think that someone who offers no actual issues to improve and yet states the need for "copy editing," when what is being advocated is not copy editing but stylistic alteration to suit a personal and idiosyncratic vision is simply trying to mark territory and might lack an appreciation for fine writing. I must have been imagining things. Being ignorant of scholarly practice is well and good. Being ignorant of it and insisting against it anyway is another. I loathe the smugness of "copy edit" needed, when the person saying so could as easily do some work, the amazingly delusional "copy edited" when what has happened is a wikilink inserted (to something quite important, like "plague" or "year"), so when these two tendencies meet, it's not surprising that I'm viscerally offended, but what is surprising is that, for a person avoiding contentious FAC's, you seem to do so much to create them by using tracer paper sheets and failing to do any editing or accepting that substantives require discussion on talk pages. However, feel free to vote to oppose on "ce" grounds (or XP grounds or NT grounds), or, if you believe that the author is to be congratulated and that it is undoubtedly fine prose, you could vote to support and demonstrate how truly above the fray you are and how much less immature about these things than I am. <shrug> My version was that your "ce" concerns were irrelevant to FAC standards. Geogre 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Your assertion that the "copy edits" don't amount to much is (really) disingenuous. A number of editors have/had improved the style. I've certainly seen the edit summary "copy edit" used loosely, but it hasn't been used loosely with this article, and it seems the nominating group here is sufficiently territorial to get worked up about it (as did I, when I saw all the reversions). So, I guess you can keep your sentence forms like "Flight from London and settlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II...", and "In the event, London was reconstructed...", and "...rumours arose of suspicious foreigners deliberately setting fires" (much scarier than the other rumours in which foreigners were accidentally setting fires). My opposition on this basis (and I never got far beyond the lead) would only be continuing my talk-page bad mood of the night before, so... good day. –Outriggr § 01:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • And, if you confined yourself to removing passives, no one would have a word to say about it. However, is drought important? The "group" doing the nominating is one person. However, when people decide that, simply put, it cannot be passable if it has not been passed through their system (cf. how "the group" deals with others when they have objections; I'm right up above withholding support on stylistic grounds for an article slathered in Gibbonisms), then you might not be surprised to see some tight scrutiny in return. If you would actually go to oppose as opposed to merely not supporting on the basis of such trivialities, then I can at least be relieved of any charge of being the petty one. There are many nearly passing articles on FAC right now that can benefit from some significant linguistic surgery, but these get either no comment or the most bizarre of automatonic objections, while a masterful synthesis of a complex and often-told narrative in well written (brilliant) prose gets a flock of ducks pecking about (no point, but lots of hammering all the same), so that, too, would tend to increase rancor. Geogre 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • On your later points I agree. Perhaps you should just take the gathering "flock of ducks" as a compliment. I'll keep your comments in mind, and try to limit my future contributions—which likely will never be of the building-FACs-from-the-rubble variety—to stub-sorting and reverting vandalism. We can't have people pooling around quality stuff to make it even better. Sigh. –Outriggr § 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is a fine piece of work and an excellent article. Greycap 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Seems I'm swimming against the tide here, but I'm concerned about the images: my screen is set to 1024 x 768 pixels and that first one takes up around half the screen when Firefox is maximized. Anything less and the page is really messed up. Consider using the thumbnail option and setting the image to 300 px or so. I'm personally a fan of consistent image sizes, perhaps one size for the landscape-oriented images and another for portrait-oriented ones? I also disagree with the presentation of the panorama: use of the regular image tag with the thumbnail option, at an appropriate pixel setting (e.g., 800 px), would be fine. My stance in general is that if someone wants a full image, they'll click to see. The article shouldn't shove images in readers' faces. On a related note: captions are tricky to get right, but the first image's is too much. Perhaps: "The Great Fire of London, by an unknown artist, as it would have appeared on the evening of Tuesday, September 4, 1666. On either end are the Tower of London and the London Bridge, and surrounded by the tallest flames, is St Paul's Cathedral." Other captions could be trimmed (and unnecessary bolding of "Firehooks" removed), and the image of Pepys moved up to "Firehazards." The Duke of York gets an image but not the new St. Paul, the Monument, or Wren? The prose seems flabby to me, at least in places, and I would like to see citations for Charles' proclamations, James' offer of the Life Guards and the like.--Monocrat 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The image problems you mention rather come down to personal computer preferences. I'm unsure what exactly do you mean by "flabby prose"? Finally, the new St. Paul's, the Monument, and Wren are nothing to do with the reality of the Great Fire of London they all came as a result of it it, but years later. This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years Giano 08:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

"This page is about the fire itself not the aftermath over the following 30 - 50 years." Yet you discuss The Monument in "Aftermath." At the very least, I would like to see the portrait of Wren. Will there be movement on citations for the King's proclamations and the like?--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of prose really requires examples and a statement as to how widespread the problems are. WRT your comments on the images, please consider upgrading your computer. Tony 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the prose is fine. There is some discussion on the talk page, but the remaining issues are, to my mind, matters of style rather than substance. I have tried to tweak the image sizes and positions (although Bishonen won't like it :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ALoan, thank you for taking care of the images. They're much better. But I'll confess that I perhaps erred in my suggestion for the panorama image. The wide-image tag might be better. I'm no longer sure and will henceforth defer on that issue.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I normally respect your points, but if you're going to tell me to upgrade my computer, are you going to tell that to every reader viewing from a public library or an older computer? What about accessibility for those with poor eyesight? "Consider upgrading your computer" is neither helpful nor especially polite. Your point about examples of the prose is fair, and I will heed it if time permits. Otherwise, disregard it.--Monocrat 17:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I second ALoan's point about the prose. Yes, Mono, you're right—we need to be more inclusive WRT technology, and I probably shouldn't have made that comment. Tony 02:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[unindenting] No one should tell anyone to get a new computer, but we have to be realistic about images, in particular, just as we have to be realistic about browser software. There may be people reading Wikipedia using Netscape 4.2 or Internet Exploder 3.0, and there may be people with low resolution CGA monitors, but we can try to make our articles accessible to those people without necessarily saying that our articles cannot be featured without being pleasing on those platforms. Monocrat has the right to wish the images smaller, but not, I think, to suggest that the article is not Featured quality because of the idiosyncracies of a public library. (user:Eternal Equinox famously liked to shrink images to look good on his Toronto school library computer, never mind what it did to every other computer.) No, we cannot, in my view, make the possibility of someone out there with lynx (browser) or a GOPHER program shape our requirements for an FA. Geogre 03:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, a lot of the people who are complaining about the prose are complaining opposite to academic and professional standards and finding themselves pleased by moving toward bad writing. There are people currently inserting passive voice constructions to make things "better." People are weakening verbs ("London experienced" is new; this is the pathetic fallacy at best and a weak indication at least), changing punctuation into what they think is the more correct but isn't (e.g. changing every "Charles's" to "Charles'"; despite popular misperceptions, it is absolutely not true that genitives of singular nouns that have an -s ending are without an additional -s; if people were to look at, oh, grammars, they'd find that the rule is far more complex than that and that it is hypercorrective error), and generally making the sentences more windy and weak. If anyone wants to assert that her or his knowledge of grammar and style is so good, so refined, and so offended by a well written article that she or he must object, then that is fine. All of these "fixes" are not fixes, and the people doing the complaining do not seem to actually go in and get ink on their fingers by doing improvements. Geogre 13:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; main issues cleared up. Thanks! Object. I'm not going to object over prose (it's fine, perhaps just at a higher register than most of us at Wikipedia are accustomed to) but I think it's a bit redundant in places. See the talk page for that. A couple possible issues:

• Why have English units before metric ones? Isn't England using metric these days? I see that Celsius takes precedence over Fahrenheit; that's good.
• Any citations for nearly all of "Tuesday" and the second paragraph of "Wednesday"?
• There are some Pepys quotes in "Sunday" that aren't cited. This is critical; any reason for the omission that I'm overlooking? There sure is. Duh.
• Should "Gluttony" be capitalized at the end?

Also, strong agreement with Geogre on the use of passive voice and genitives of singular nouns ending in -s. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 22:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple answer for the English (Imperial) units vs. metric is that.... Well, it's haphazard. Kilometres are rarely used, but tempratures are almost always in Celsius, for instance. Packaging is in grams, but pounds and stones quite commonly used for humans. I'd leave the units as they are. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: the UK has obligations under EU law to use the metric system, and is moving towards widespread usage of it. The metric system should be used first, with the US/Burmese/Liberian equivalent in parentheses. Tony 13:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody else feel there would something wrong and artificial about listing metric units first in an article about 17th century England? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I do! The whole idea seems excessive to me. MLilburne 09:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh well, perhaps we should be more flexible: I see the arguments here. But please do provide a Celsius equivalent in parentheses. Tony 10:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. MLilburne 10:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article. Member N 06:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are still unreferenced paragraphs. Please reference them; once refs density is increased I'll be happy to support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Density of references?! Are there any particular facts in those paragraphs that you think must be cited specifically? Do you think they would not be found by looking in the general accounts that are cited numerous times already? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• General comment from nominator. Thank you very much all who've paid my work nice compliments. There are three unresolved opposes right now: Gzkn's longish list up top ("lot's of long sentences that could be broken up", "rambling," "a variety of unsourced statements," "avoid forms of 'to get,'" etc), that I've partly fixed, partly replied to, and not heard back about; Monocrat's "flabby prose", dislike of the delimitation of the content and images, and request for more specific citations; and now Piotrus' wish for greater density of references altogether. That makes, basically, two opposes based on poor prose plus poor citing, and one oppose based on poor citing alone.
  • Prose. I don't know what to do about the imputed rambling and flabbiness, especially since the way of writing is singled out as excellent by some supporters. I see little middle ground for pleasing both groups.
  • Inline citing. The non-footnoted facts in each section are cited through a "covering note" of the form "The section "Wednesday" is based on Tinniswood, 101–10, unless otherwise indicated," now more specifically phrased, according to Sandy's suggestion. Only the sections that have any otherwise unreferenced facts get these covering notes. I suppose Piotrus and I just don't entirely agree about what is and isn't referenced, not that I mean to be difficult. I bet some of the disharmony is Pepys' fault. As indicated in note 14 and discussed above,[2] [3] [4] stuff that's shown in the text to come from Pepys and that's clearly dated by inference, doesn't get any further referencing than that. Large portions of the section "Sunday" are straight from Pepys—I hope it's apparent and delimited which bits they are—and therefore that section is rather lightly footnoted. I don't see footnote density as a beauty per se, but anybody who believes it would be informative can easily add five or ten notes stating that various facts and claims in "Sunday" come from Pepys' entry for Sunday. It doesn't have to be me, it won't take any research or anything. Further, I don't quite understand Piotrus' request for a minimum of one note per paragraph. Notes are to do with facts, paragraphs are to do with layout. And, well, I've just never seen a one-per-paragraph "rule" before this discussion. It was formulated a bit further up by Sandy, who did not choose to oppose over it, but Piotrus does. Incidentally, for the general point Sandy makes about the problem of the "covering note" in a dynamic editing environment, I understand it, but they're kind of an emergency measure. If I didn't have them, and also wasn't ready to take even agreed-on historical facts as established, which Monocrat, Gznk, and Piotrus seem to imply I shouldn't (if I understand them), I'd need rather more than one note per sentence. At that point it might be time to stop talking about "prose" at all, and to envisage FA texts as mere grids or warps for a rich, deep weave of footnotes. Wikipedia's best?
  • Featured? This drift towards deeper and deeper layering of FAs in the paraphernalia of scholarship is one of the reasons I'm no longer any too invested in having this article Featured, so from my POV none of the above is much of a big deal any more. (Though it will be or it won't be, in either case quite without reference to my feelings, as is proper.) Another is that I foresee this article will be difficult to maintain at FA quality, and it's not a job I'd apply for. It's a popular subject that all the British and many other anglophones probably read about at school, and it's likely to always attract plenty of editing: improvements, but also drive-by additions of speculation, misunderstanding, and random, unreferenced factoids. The "main contributors" to FAs seem to be expected to keep the articles FA quality (at least this expectation is frequently reiterated on the various FA and FAR talkpages), and yet these contributors are particularly susceptible to charges of "ownership." The tightrope act of fixing up without offending and without getting called too many names has gone well enough with "my" other FAs, with their odd and to most people uninteresting subjects, but with this one it's already not looking like my kind of job. I don't think I was born with the tact for it. Bishonen | talk 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC).
    • Bishonen, I apologize again for any insult I may have offered. The prose is quite good in general. I merely think there are a enough instances requiring clarification to make me unable to support the article. The image concern has been addressed. While I'm not keen on the use of such a broad covering note, especially since you're drawing from a specific edition and volume of the The Diary, I haven't made it an issue. (Perhaps you could note in the References section the relevant range of pages from the copy of the Diary you're using? See Template:Cite book for how to do that.) I've only asked for two specific citations (and a few for the several instances of the King's proclamations), as opposed to Piotrus' desire for greater density of them. It seems like I've heard elsewhere that human teeth can survive extreme heat, but I don't think that qualifies as a reliable source. Since their ability to do so seems important to the hypothesis that casualties from the fire were greater than believed, I think a request for a citation is reasonable. I suspect that the King's proclamations and the Duke of York's offer of the Life Guards comes from Pepys. In that case, the covering note is sufficient for those.--Monocrat 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • (Outdenting.) Sorry, no, I'm afraid I won't give the page range for Pepys' diary entries for September 2– 7, 1666, as I don't think the result would look professional or creditable for us. I suggest you do it, if you think yourself a judge of the effect, or somebody else—it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit. I certainly don't regard this as "my" article, and the information will be very easy to find, once you have the book. (I'd have to go back to the library for it just like anybody else.) Why does it have to be done by the person who's convinced it's a bad idea? Did you click on my links above? They lead to where Geogre and MLilburne explain what's wrong with giving page refences to Pepys. Giving the page range you request would look rather like giving a page range for Exodus from a particular edition of King James' Bible in the context of discussing Moses. (=It would look bad.)
  • Since the Duke of York's offer is part of a narrative where Pepys tells the King about the fire, and note 14 says "All... details involving Samuel Pepys come from his diary entry for the day referred to", the Duke's offer is indeed from Pepys' diary, yes. I certainly don't want anybody to doubt it, so I've put in a note refering to Pepys' diary entry for Sunday, September 2, for that whole paragraph. If it makes people long for similar references for all events involving Pepys, they should just add them.
  • No, Charles' proclamations aren't to do with Pepys, they're covered by the covering notes for the sections in which they appear. They're also official state papers, it's not like there's any room for doubt or disagreement about them. In fact they're mentioned at some length in all my print sources. Anyway, I think I do cite them.
  • The entire bit after note 47 (as of this moment) is referenced by note 48. In other words it's from Hanson, including the details about teeth being the most heat-resistant part of the body, and about the 1666 London poor mostly not having any. I'm not a fan of the common Wikipedia way of referencing whole chunks or paragraphs by putting a note at the end (or sometimes the beginning) of them, as I think it's a bit sloppy and can easily leave areas of ambiguity. (I'm fussy about clear citing, believe it or not; I'm not actually indulging some whim against scholarly citations here—they're pretty much what I do for a living—only resisting what I see as empty formalia.) I did think it was clear enough in this instance, as the passage starts with Hanson, is devoted to describiing Hanson's unique theory, and keeps quoting and mentioning him. It's all on pp. 326–33 in Hanson's book, as stated in the note. If you want me to do more about the teeth, you'll have to tell me what.
  • Please take the time to read the discussion here, and the article as a whole narrative, and I think you'll find your objections are in fact already met. Bishonen | talk 03:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC).

The trouble with covering notes is that sometimes, just sometimes, it's unclear exactly what is covered and when. (One moment of unclarity and spoil moments of otherwise crystal clarity.) I'm unfond of covering notes generally, and I personally disagree with you that numerous footnotes are or would be a bad thing in this context, but that really is neither here nor there vis-a-vis my objection. Thank you for sorting out the citations issue. The point about the page range was a suggestion only. Disregard it as you see fit. Now, the only bone of contention between us lies in a few elements of unclear or confusing prose.--Monocrat 08:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

And so you will remain with an "Object" because of you wre confused by some of the prose? When there is a problem with reading, one must always ask, "Is it me, or is it the author?" If it's the former, you will be unable to find a rule to explain the problem, and no one else will notice it. If it's the latter, you will be able to explain coherently and concisely what the problem is. The author, trying to please readers, has to ask, "Is it me, or is it the reader?" At this point, she looks somewhat absolved. If you "cannot support," then that is not the same as lodging an "object." The citations you seek are in some cases really counterproductive. Citing page numbers in Pepys? If a person had cited, in the text, "Matthew 6:1-12," I would find "[edition] p. 632" silly, if I ever even looked at the note. I would grab a Bible or go to Wikisource and look at Matthew, chapter six, not go to a library or bookstore to hope to find the edition the author used. A singular work without any textual variation is itself. At any rate, there is a big difference between being constructive and being picayune. Geogre 12:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Outstanding FA material in my opinion. For the life of me I don't understand what all the fuss is about the prose - "Lot's of long sentences that could be broken up"; surely forcing a short choppy sentence style runs counter to "brilliant prose", of which this article seems to be an excellent example? --Mcginnly | Natter 15:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stegosaurus

This article is a product of Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs, the same team that assembled Featured Articles Velociraptor, Tyrannosaurus, Psittacosaurus, and Albertosaurus. It is certainly factually accurate: it uses citations from published paleontological papers: from Marsh's original description in the 1800s, to Fastovsky and Weishampel's 2005 plate analysis. It's well referenced: we generally used professional papers for the citations instead of web-sites. The article is neutral: it presents various theories, specifically in relation to the dermal plates, without giving undue weight to discredited ideas.

In the article's last Featured Article candidacy, several objections were raised. These have been addressed:

"The article is too listy"..."more prose would be advisable"

• The list of species has been converted to prose. The sections that were short have been filled out. One list of four items remains, for clarity.

"The article needs to be expanded, I'm sure there is more information available."

• This article is as long (or longer) than Featured dinosaur Articles Psittacosaurus, Albertosaurus, and Velociraptor. For comparison with other animal articles which are Featured Articles, it is also longer than Emu, Marginated tortoise, Cane toad, Green and Golden Bell Frog and many others.

"The popular culture contains a whole lot of trivia"..."The "Popular culture" section is a third of the entire article"

• There is still a pop culture section. However, this section comprises only 1/10th the length of the rest of the article. Actually, it was never a third of the entire article. All trivia has been removed; what remains are important pop culture references: Gary Larson's Far Side comic, which gave the animal's tail its scientifically recognized name, film appearances in King Kong, Jurassic Park, Godzilla, etc.

"Was stegosaurus really the shape indicated in the scale picture?"

• Yes it was.

"The sections feel all together too short"

• Sections that were short were expanded; a few were merged.

"footnotes follow punctuation, please read WP:FN"

• These have all been corrected. New footnotes added also follow the convention. (Self-nom)Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Support a team of people did alot of tweaking after the last nomination by me failed, and I think the summary above is good. (I couldn't have said it better myself......)Cas Liber 00:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This is an excellent dino article and has all the ingredients to be a fine FA. All the objections made at its first nomination have been properly addressed. ArthurWeasley 00:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. WikiProject Dinosaurs members include actual vertebrate paleontologists, PhD students, and amateurs. These individuals have come together to create this article. (for the record, I am a member of WikiProject Dinosaurs) Firsfron of Ronchester 00:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rlevse 02:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Jay32183 02:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral→Support. I'm only voting neutral for now so that my concerns will be heard & acted upon. Okay, firstly, this is a good article. However it needs some pruning. I'd like to see the opening 3 paragraphs combined into 2 paragraphs, as 3, although acceptable, is kinda weird considering that the info can easily be moulded into 2. Next, there are too many 1 or 2 line paragraphs throughout the article. Either combine them with the others of it's kind or expand them a bit. Lastly, The sentence "Juvenile specimens of Stegosaurus have also been found. One sub-adult specimen, discovered in 1994, is 4.6 metres (15 feet) long and 2 metres (7 feet) high, and is estimated to have weighed 2.6 tons while alive." needs a bit of reworking. It's too short to be alone in a paragraph & where have the specimens been found? If these are addressed I'll vote support... Spawn Man 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(OK, I've added a bit. Is it long enough yet?)Cas Liber 04:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Yep - 3rd para slots nicely onto first come to think of it. Consensus?) Cas Liber 04:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • There is still too many 1 or 2 sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Merge these with other paragraphs or expand them. I feel that 3 sentence paragraphs would suffice. This article about 90% FA quality... :) Spawn Man 01:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Could you be more specific about which 10% of the article you feel could be improved upon? Mark t young 02:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC) 02:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As stated above, just the short paragraphs around the show.... Spawn Man 00:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • • Changed to support. Article is now practically devoid of 2 liners... Spawn Man 02:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Interesting read well put together I have a couple of concenrs with the descriptions this sentence in particular the bold section The tail appears to have been held well clear off the ground, while the skull of Stegosaurus was positioned relatively low to the ground.[3]. Then combine this with the next/opening sentence of the following paragraph The skull of Stegosaurus was long and narrow and held probably no higher than 1 m (3.3 ft) above the ground suggest using a comma(,) instead of two "and" also while the preceeding sentences is positive and certain as to the head position, this one is vague. Gnangarra 09:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(You're right. It is (was) a bit clunky. This is as a result of 2 paras coming together without a bit of tweaking. I have tweaked it now to make it read more smoothly and remove reduplicated bits.)Cas Liber 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support change from neutral to support Gnangarra 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article has imporved greatly since it was previously submitted for FA status. I personally feel that it is one of the best dinosaur articles of Wikipedia, and that all the contributions made have created an article that is both factually correct and accessable to a non-professional audience, but does not suffer the bain of "dumbing-down". Excellent work. Mark t young 12:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Tremendous improvement since the last FAC. Very well written aticle. Hello32020 02:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great to see one of my favorite dinosaurs featured in such a high quality article :). Gzkn 04:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. Great article. I have only a couple of nitpicking issues, not serious enough to oppose, and easy to fix. Neil916 (Talk) 11:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Changed to Support. Neil916 (Talk) 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please review the "Units of measurement" section of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The article should have its units of measure spelled out (metres rather than m) in the text, but conversions in parentheses should be abbreviated. At times, the article switches between metric and U.S. measurements (tons and grams used in the same sentence in the description section). Make sure all the measurements have conversions for metric-impaired readers like me.
• Beware of switching back and forth between British English spellings and American English spellings. The majority of the article seems to be British English, so beware of spellings like "centimeter" (in the Plates subsection of the Palaeobiology section). Unfortunately, as an American, it's much easier for me to spot British spellings in articles using American spelling than vice versa, so I can't come up with any other examples.

I believe Mark t young has fixed all of the mixed measurements, added conversions, and fixed the mixed British/American spelling to British English. Like you, I don't spot Americanisms very easily. But it appears to be all fixed now. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a few more, which I've hunted down myself, and I'll take your word on the spelling issue. Neil916 (Talk) 22:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Neil. I did an automated check on words like "color" and "armor". The only instances found were in the titles of books (which obviously shouldn't be changed) and in the name of the state of Colorado. "Meter" also shows no results. Again, thanks for the fixes. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nice article.--Rudjek 20:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent article. —ExplorerCDT 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bette Davis

Self nomination. I think the article is thorough and equal to the standard of other featured articles for performers in the arts. It is rated as "A" class on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography assessment scale, and it has been selected for inclusion in Wikipedia:Version 0.5 and also rated as "A class" on their assessment scale. All information has been carefully sourced - I've checked and double-checked everything. I look forward to comments. Thanks. Rossrs 01:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Support Well written and researched.
  • Some statements could use citations; do you still have easy access to all those books in the references? Also, when there's a citation at the end of the paragraph, but not for any of the other sentences, does that mean the whole paragraph comes from that one source? Anyway, some examples:
    • She auditioned for admission to Eva LeGallienne's Manhattan Civic Repertory, but was rejected by LeGallienne who described her as insincere. (have expanded LeGalliene's comment and added citation)
    • She later recounted her surprise that nobody from the studio was there to meet her; a studio employee had waited for her, but left because he saw nobody who "looked like an actress". (covered by existing cite, but I have changed the page number as this point and the "I thought I would die" quote were on different pages, but part of the same text)
    • She recalled being hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline, only to be rebuffed by the director William Wyler, who loudly rejected her with the comment, "What do you think of these dames who show their chests and think they can get jobs?" (added a citation for this + also expanded this section slightly)
    • The director, John Cromwell, allowed her relative freedom, and commented, "I let Bette have her head. I trusted her instincts." (covered by existing citation)
    • E. Arnot Robertson wrote in Picture Post, "I think Bette Davis would probably have been burned as a witch if she had lived two or three hundred years ago. She gives the curious feeling of being charged with power which can find no ordinary outlet". (covered by existing citation)
    • Hastings urged the court to "come to the conclusion that this is rather a naughty young lady and that what she wants is more money". He mocked Davis's description of her contract as "slavery" by stating, incorrectly, that she was being paid $1,350 per week. He remarked, "if anybody wants to put me into perpetual servitude on the basis of that remuneration, I shall prepare to consider it". (covered by existing citation)
    • She won a second Academy Award for the role, but Selznick ruled her out of contention for his film, deciding that she was too identifiable as a personality, and that the character should be played by a lesser known actress. (changed this to something more succinct - ie Selznick didn't want her. and provided citation)
    • She commented that she had a "nerve" playing a woman in her sixties, to which Laughton replied, "Never not dare to hang yourself. That's the only way you grow in your profession. You must continually attempt things that you think are beyond you, or you get into a complete rut". (covered by existing citation)
    • The last two paragraphs in Success as "The Fourth Warner Brother" need some sources.
    • Criticised by Jack Warner for her tendency to cajole and harangue crowds into buying, she reminded him that her audiences responded most strongly to her "bitch" performances. (covered by existing citation)
    • Davis later commented, "There are few accomplishments in my life that I am sincerely proud of. The Hollywood Canteen is one of them." (covered by existing citation)
    • The first paragraph of Personal and professional setbacks
    • Davis later explained her actions with the observation, "when I was most unhappy I lashed out rather than whined." (covered by existing citation)
    • Davis described the script as "the best I ever read" and during production, she... (covered by existing citation)
    • She said later that the role "brought me back from the dead"... (I can't find a citation for this so have removed it)
    • The director, Robert Aldrich, said that the actresses were each aware of how important the film was to their respective careers and despite their mutual dislike worked together in a tense but professional atmosphere. (quoted Aldrich and provided citation)
    • Davis was pleased, and commented to an interviewer that for the first time, her grandson considered her to be "cool". (couldn't find that exact quote, but rewrote would I could find, and cited accordingly)
    • Several of Davis's friends commented that Hyman's depictions of events were not accurate; one commented "so much of the book is out of context". (covered by existing citation)
    • Reviewers such as Edwin Schallert for the Los Angeles Times praised Davis's performance in Mr. Skeffington (1944), while observing, "the mimics will have more fun than a box of monkeys imitating Miss Davis", and Dorothy Manners writing for the Los Angeles Examiner said of her performance in the poorly received Beyond the Forest, "no night club caricaturist has ever turned in such a cruel imitation of the Davis mannerisms as Bette turns on herself in this one." (covered by existing citation)
  • Is it really necessary to have all those "Davis recalled later" statements? In my opinion, it might increase readability if sentences like, "She recalled being hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline..." were changed to "She was hastily dressed in an ill-fitting costume with a low neckline...".
  • I'm fairly new, so I'm not yet very familiar with WP policy. Is the lead in WP articles exempt from inline citations? I've seen some other articles also go without any in the lead. Gzkn 06:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, let me say how much I appreciate the level of detail you have gone into. It makes it much easier to respond to -so thank you. With regards to the statements you have listed, I will go back over the article and ensure that everything is covered by a cite. Usually, if there are a number of points all covered by one cite, I cite it once at the end of the applicable section. I guess this can be confusing for anyone looking back over it, but I don't know how else to do this, without ending up with 4 times as many cites, as I currently have used. If there is a cite at the end of a paragraph it should be safe to assume that all points, even comments or quotes from different people, are covered. I've included page numbers so sometimes there is a range of pages from which the total information is drawn. As I said, I'll double check, but I'm 99.9% sure I've picked them all up. I don't know if that's the right way to do it or not, I just can't see another way that is not highly cumbersome. To answer your question, yes I own all the books cited, therefore checking is no problem, and it will just take a little time.

I've gone through and addressed each of the points you made regarding citations. I have commented after each point. Rossrs 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Yeah, I think this is more of a problem with Wikipedia's way of citing more than anything else. While citing everything would be desirable from a verifiability standpoint, and leaves it less ambiguous to readers as to what exactly is cited, it definitely leads to huge readability issues. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Bette recalled ... yes there are a few of those, and probably too many. I can easily rewrite them, but the difficulty in that is that they then become written as facts. As written, they are Bette Davis anecdotes, which may or may not have been exaggerated for dramatic effect. Example - the comments on the Dick Cavett show about "being laid on a couch and testing fifteen men". There may be some basis of truth, but Davis obviously expected a laugh from the way she presented it. I'll trim down those that I can - most of them should be quite easy, but I think there will be a few that should stay as they are. The example you gave is awkwardly written, I agree.

I have rewritten the section you mention, and I think it's greatly improved. I have left some examples because I think they are necessary, but please let me know if you disagree. Rossrs 14:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding, which could be wrong, is that cites are not desirable in the lead section because it spoils the "look" of the section and not necessary as it is intended to be a summary of the article that follows. Therefore nothing should be in the lead section that is not in the body of the article, where it should be cited. Let me know if there is anything written in the lead that you are specifically unhappy with, and I will attempt to address it. Rossrs 11:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've seen leads both ways, so that's why I asked. Gzkn 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's my understanding, too, Rossrs. Everything in the lead should also be in the body of the article. To source it twice seems distracting and overkill, IMO. Jeffpw 12:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'll be the first to support this remarkable article! A well-done article on a magnificent lady. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• One comment, though. I don't believe that Bette's name needs to be bolded in the first sentence of the Background section. It only needs to be bolded in its first occurance in the introduction. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, you should include her whole name in the lead to read Ruth Elizabeth Davis known as Bette Davis. Then the first sentence of the Background section would begin "Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis, ...". Sorry to be picky. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'm pleased you like the article. I've taken your suggestion regarding the name, with a minor variation, as per the Boris Karloff suggestion at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I think because the stage name is so much more famous than the birth name, it should go first .Rossrs 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support and commment. Very nice article. I just think the last paragraph in the lead is two short and should be merged or transferred in the main article.--Yannismarou 10:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks like an afterthought doesn't it? Maybe it should be removed from the lead. After all, it's just one of many forms of recognition she's received since her death, albeit a particularly credible one. It's mentioned in the article so I'll remove it from the lead, and if anyone thinks it should go back.... Rossrs 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Per the manual of style, articles about American subjects must use uniform American English spelling. Andrew Levine 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand this and tried to comply but it looks like I missed some. eg I used "color" rather than "colour", "favorite" rather than "favourite" and "Defense" rather than "Defence", but because I'm Australian and spell British English, I don't necessarily know every word that should have an American equivalent spelling. If you can give some examples of where I've gone wrong that would be appreciated, because I thought I got them all, and to my Australian eye it all looks fine. Obviously it's not. Thanks. Rossrs 02:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've started to go through and made a lot of changes in the first few sections (for example -ise to -ize, theatre to theater) and will have the rest done soon. Andrew Levine 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you. Whew, there really were a lot! I'll go through and see what else I can see, now that I know what I'm looking for. Americans just love using the letter "Z" don't they? ;-) Rossrs 06:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the rest of the article, and changed what I detected as incorrect. Hopefully there shouldn't be too many errors still hiding in the article. Rossrs 06:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just paste the entire text into a Word document, change your SpellChecker preferences to AmEng, and run it. Windows ... Start --> Control Panel --> Regions and Languages (then adjust two of the three tabs). Tony 14:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, Tony! I'll be using that in future. It took no time at all and I found 13 typos and spelling problems - and this is after two people had copy-edited it. Now the spelling must be right! Rossrs 15:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Only two trivial problems: 1) it's a bit lengthy (but that's no big deal because the information there seems vital and the writing seems focussed); and 2) You could have used 'op cit' and 'ib id' when formatting the sources, instead of repeatedly giving complete bibliographic information for the same books. Orane (talk • cont.) 05:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Orane. Would 'op cit' and 'ib id' still show page numbers? Rossrs 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Instead of:

• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 254-255. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, p 241. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 246-247. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.

you'd have:

• ^ Spada, James (1993). More Than a Woman. Little, Brown and Company, pp 254-255. ISBN 0-316-90880-0.
• ^ Spada, p 241.
• ^ ib id, Spada, pp 246-247.

(Or you could omit the op cit/id ib and just write the last name (an example of this is the Mariah Carey article).)

Like I said, however, it's rather trivial. You don't have to change it if you don't want to. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I will change it at some point because it may make the article easier to edit, but as it's not a major issue I'll leave it until I have a little more time. Rossrs 11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - Really good. It's verifiable, some of the prose made me sad at times, and fair use rationales for images. Wiki-newbie 16:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Wycombe Park

I started this page a couple of years ago when I was very new to Wikipedia (another name ago) since then it has been edited by many others. A month or so ago I completely re-wrote it, expanded it and referenced all the facts, and took out those which were dubious or just completely unfounded. So it's sort of a self-nom. Surprisingly almost unknown outside of it's immediate locality, it's an interesting house architecturally as it is mongrel of many styles carried out in a theatrical way for a very interesting and notorious man. It seems to me to meet all the criteria for a featured article. Giano 16:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I read the first two sentences and found a problem. "The first impression of West Wycombe is that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto, or perched as an aristocratic summer retreat looking over the sea in the Crimea." The first impresion by whom? Why should it be situated in the hills? Just scrap this sentence, too much personal opinion for my tastes. Joelito (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have removed both offending sentences, allthough I think "should be situated in the hills of the Veneto" could be re-instated as the reasoning is explained later in the text, and the lead is merely summarising what is cited laterGiano 17:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have given this one a light copyedit too, although some infelicities no doubt remain for the eagle-eyed, but this is an excellent article on a beautiful house. I'm sure Giano will find a citation for the "first impression" - it is a quite extraordinary villa to find near a lake in the English countryside. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• An excellent article overall (as if there were any doubts regarding Giano's writing), but a number of little things that need to be cleaned up:
  • The image stacking is so dense as to cause gaps to appear in the text; some of the images should really be interleaved onto the left margin.

I don't see any gaps Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The "References" section needs to be properly formatted and alphabetized. (And why the strange "20.VIII.06" date style? I don't believe I've ever seen Roman numerals used for months, only years.)

Numerals for months is standard British legal formatting, but if you hate it you can change it Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The footnotes should be cleaned up to have proper spacing and punctuation; in particular, "p57" should be "p. 57" or "57", and so forth.
  • The "See also" section should be eliminated; most of the links are already present in the text, and any that aren't can probably be worked in without too much difficulty. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have eliminated the "see also" as suggested, the only problem with that is that people often come along don't know such pages as List of films shot at West Wycombe Park exists, don't bother to read the page and then just insert their film in the wrong place, usually in my experience when a film is shot somewhere like West Wycombe it means there is one distant shot of the house a mile away for 2 seconds, and the interiors are all in a studio in America, which is why I seldom insert such trivia myself, and like to have a separate clearly visible page for such information - but anyway that is my reasoning but I have removed that section as that seems to be the majority view. Giano 08:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that either of those lists really needs to exist; they seem rather like unexpandable trivia to me. But that's not really in issue with this article. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The images look ok on my screen, but I'm sure they can me moved around a bit. I have hacked the references and see also about a bit. A patient person still needs to add dots and spaces in the notes. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've sorted the footnotes, I think they are all OK now. Giano 12:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems fine now, as do the images, so support from me. Kirill Lokshin 13:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. I'm always happy to see articles about architecture at the FA level, especially the ones written by Giano. This building was unknown to me too until this article, which is not just about architecture, but also history, and biography. DVD+ R/W 18:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not good enough. Not nearly. Not for a while. Sorry. Policratus 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah right. Crossing out comment from indefinitely blocked troll.[5] Bishonen | talk 02:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

• • In what way is it not nearly good enough? -- ALoan (Talk) 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Poor formatting, too verbose, etc. Policratus 19:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh Dear, not a lot we can do about that then, never mind some you win , some you loose. Giano 20:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• You mean lose, not "loose," I think sir. Policratus 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't be so sure! Giano 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Lovely article on a house that may be lovely (I'm at work and my company blocks the pictures, alas).

• I, too have an issue with the sentence "The first impression of West Wycombe is that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto." It throws the reader a bit. Perhaps a solution would be to have it read "Built in the style of Palladio's Venetian villas, West Wycombe Park gives the impression that it should be situated in the hills of the Veneto." Better? Maybe?
• Just curious, is much known of the manor house that this replaced? Should an earlier history of the park be added?

I'll cnhange it as per your suggestion Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is known, just what is stated, probably another boring square box I expect

• "The Greek Doric of the house's West portico is the earliest example of the Greek revival in Britain. Only Lord Burlington's Chiswick House, or Mereworth Castle, attempt to so faithfully replicate the classical ideals" - should be cited.

Sentence has gone Giano 07:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Kirill on the images. I would suggest moving three of the image as follows:

• Frescoes in the Villa Farnesina moved to just above the paragraph starting with "West Wycombe has been described...".
• 1781 view of the south façade moved to the left.
• Wycombe's Blue Drawing Room ceiling moved to the left as well.

I think moving these images would solve the problems of the gaps in the text.

I don't have any gaps in the text, it all looks fine to me - I don't know how to place images, I just stick them in and hope for the best. Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe it's my browser. I'm using Internet Explorer...if you'd like, I can shift the images a bit and see what happens. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Again, like Kirill, I think the See Also section can be incorporated into the article.

I've absorbed the see also and deleted it. I don't think it was a good idea as the two pages are directly concerned with West Wycombe and will never be searched for elsewhere, but if that is what people want so be it Giano 22:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't intend for you to do away with the links, just place the garden one in the garden section and such. Indeed, they are important and should be in the article, just not a section to themselves. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Giano, despite my picking and the picking of others, this is a fine article. You certainly have blessed us with marvelous articles on architecture (this one is no exception!) and I thank you for introducing me to the fascinating Dashwoods. They've somehow slipped under my radar and I will certainly pursue some research on them. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we can dispense with see also, I don't think that was part of my input, I may be wrong, I've forgotten Giano 21:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I tweaked one pic a bit and now it looks fine to me...I hope it works for everyone else as well. Marvelous work! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Quick Comments I was only able to skim through, but it looked good in general. I also made some light copy edits.
  • Only Lord Burlington's Chiswick House, or Mereworth Castle, attempt to so faithfully replicate the classical ideals. Is Mereworth Castle another name for Chiswick House? If so, it doesn't need to be linked again does it? If not, than it should probably read "and Mereworth" without commas.
  • "John Donowell" is linked three times (twice in close proximity).
  • Perhaps "Greek and Roman mythology" can be changed to "Greek and Roman mythology". Gzkn 05:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks I've addressed all of your points and fixed. I've removed the offending sentence about Chiswick and Mereworth becaise I'm not sure I 100% agrree with it - so it's out. Giano 07:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hehe...thanks for the talk page message :). Read the article over again and changing to Support. Gzkn 10:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very fascinating read from start to finish, and another great job. You're a machine! --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice to see some personality in the writing for a change; "his risque devotion to that goddess of love" alone makes it worthwhile. I'd like to see an inline reference for the "Interior" section though (I assume it is from Knox). Yomangani^talk 16:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article, good writing and images. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support with a couple of comments. Two images - Image:Palazzo_Chiericati.jpg and Image:Farnesina_frescoes.jpg - severely overlap and crowd each other into the text at resolutions at and above 1600x1200. The text is over-linked in places; I don't think satellite is what you meant to link to, and why link things like guns, champagne, prop?? Lastly, while the writing is very good and surprisingly engaging, there are a few instances of editorializing, eg "Palladio would have placed the main entrance on the first floor reached by an outer staircase", "brutally cut", "the atmosphere...is not overpowering", etc. Opabinia regalis 05:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've removed some of the links, as a non native English speaker myself "prop" was a word I had to look up after living in England and speaking fluent English for three years so I have left that linked for the benefeit of others like myself, regarding other links, I beleive they are supposed to be linked. Palladio would have put the entrance on the first floor, so I have left that, but reowrded it to be clearer. The images appear fine on my screen, and I have fixed them for two editors who commented above - I don't know what to do about your problem, could you have a go yourself, that may be easier, I don't really understand pixels and sizes etc. The satellite link is what I meant to link to, isn't that an idiom in English too? Giano 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Check User:Opabinia regalis/Sandbox - the images now arrange properly on my screen, but I didn't want to bork the formatting for more common resolutions. Yes, smaller subsidiary buildings can be called satellites, but the article satellite is about celestial bodies. I don't really see the benefit in linking to a totally different use of the word just because they're metaphorically related. "Prop" maybe, but... guns? Pineapples? Antique? There's no need to link these, because the only thing about them that the reader has to know in this context is the definition, and these are not uncommon terms. I've seen the delinking folks remove things like "X is a protein found in plants". Opabinia regalis 04:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've had a look, and there are no white spaces but the problem ism the exterior section instead of beginning with a nice clear shot of the exterior, now begins with an interior shot (ie Frescoes in the Villa Farnesina) there is so much text above, cannot it somehow be absorbed in that, as it it on other screens. I have delinked pineapples etc etc, allthough I suspect someone will link them all back within a month. Thanks for trying with the images. Giano 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Way too minor to fuss over, but bear in mind that the exterior section doesn't begin with a nice clear shot of the exterior for users browsing at 1600x1200 or above. I'm not sure how big a population that is overall. Opabinia regalis 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support but: 1) Architecture: Exterior: 2nd paragraph: There are references to "this" side and "this" portico; I see that it's the "west," but it seems like we're talking about a specific design crisis/time that isn't clearly enough delineated for me (was this a particular time? was this part of his opening of bidding/redesign?); 2) Dashwoods: Lax sexual morality: It's an interesting time, and, in fact, sexual morality was not very lax except among the rich at the time; in fact, many moral crusades were underway, including George Whitfield and the Methodist awakening, so someone like Boswell could be doing fairly offensive things and feeling no guilt, but the nation itself was growing more scanalized, and therefore things like the Hellfire Club were political statements either against the new "dissenter" inspired religious movements or as a demonstration of how the rules wouldn't apply to nobles; my point is merely that I'd love to see "lax standards" removed or conditioned. A great article with a very full narrative of both the technical, historical, and family stories that have gone into one of the most visible and frequently seen examples of 18th century architecture. Very well done, well researched, and well presented and organized. Geogre 15:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Geogre - I understand your first point, I've addressed it but please have a look and see if I have understood you properly - the sexy bit I have fixed - I could make that longer in explanation but the architecture is sexy enough for me Giano 16:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Really nice fixes, Giano. No hesitation on my support. Geogre 19:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another great article by an author is who is rapidly becoming one of the most prolific FA producers in Wikipedia's short history. Normally I scan articles for their content, but this drew me in because of how well-written it was. Kudos to you, Giano! Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead(II) nitrate

The Chemicals wikiproject team joined hands in a recent Article of the Month effort for enhancing the lead(II) nitrate from a small promising subject to an FA-class article. The article aptly fulfills now all requirements that the wikiproject puts on assigning the A-Class, which are equivalent to the general FA-class requirements with specific chemicals items, such the chemicals infobox, and emphasis on inclusion of appropriate safety data. In my perception, this effort has been successful. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC).

• Support. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 20:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
• Where's the ld 50/30? Raul654 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good question: there isn't any reliable safety data available for this particular lead salt. Serious estimates should be based on equivalent salts and/or metallic lead. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC).
  • I enhanced the Safety to state as much. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
  • We don't usually quote LD50 values, as they take more time explaining than they're actually worth. Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Chris 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support (biase:I have been a recent contributor to this article) V8rik 20:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. (1)Is it possible to explain the fact that this substance is carcinogenic. How does it cause cancer? When was this discovered? Is there research about this, or is this simply evident due to its chemical nature? A short section and a few references about this would be appreciated. (2) Was this substance only used in medieval Europe, or also elsewhere (Ottoman empire, China, India, etc). I think the history section should be expanded (if possible). Sijo Ripa 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good points. I simply added that indeed this product was Europe only until the 20th century to the History section, and enhanced the Safety section with a paragraph about the carcinogenity. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
    • I have expanded the safety section to address some of the points you raise: it is carcinogenic as well as being acutely toxic, and the best explanation I have come accross I have placed in the article. It's probably not the only explanation for lead toxicity, but it's a start! Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object, history section is extremely sparse. Two sentences that don't cover anything since the 15th century is not enough background for a featured subject. There's an applications section; how did it come to be used? The application section is kind of bad too, with an uncited weasely sentence that has incorrect grammar to boot: "Is it reported that lead nitrate has an effect on the leaching process in gold cyanidation, improving speed and yield, particularly in processing partially oxidized ores." Safety section is not in compliance with WP:NPOV by giving advice and instructions ("Due care should be taken before and during handling of the material."). Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The history of lead(II) nitrate isn't a big story, and most information is presented in the (short) section. I copyedited the History for clarity. Removed the weasel sentence from the Applications section (thanks for pointing this out), and further copy-edited it for more improvement. Safety section (see other remarks above) is significantly enhanced and copyedited. I hope this mitigates the problems you saw. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC).
  • I agree with Wim here, lead(II) nitrate does not have much of a history behind it (unlike other lead compounds). Physchim62 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice work. Rlevse 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—Needs a copy-edit before promotion. In particular, there are recurring problems concerning the smooth, logical integration of ideas into sentences. For example:
  • "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic, and therefore should be handled and stored with precautions." Three "ands" in a row; try "Lead(II) nitrate is toxic and probably carcinogenic; therefore, it should be handled and stored with CARE." Why are those two words italicised?
  • "... synthesized and described the product as plumb dulcis or calx plumb dulcis." Um ... try: "... synthesized the product and named it plumb dulcis (or calx plumb dulcis). And did he provide both names? It's unclear whether other people have added the "calx".
  • "Nearly all other lead compounds are insoluble in water, even salts such as lead(II) chloride and lead(II) sulfate; lead(II) acetate is the only other common lead compound that is soluble." The semicolon and second clause are good, but the comma is wrong—try an em dash. Tony 04:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • All remarks here are fully true, and of course taken care of, now. Additionally to the issues pointed out, I did give the article a more thorough once-over, as lines of thought, textual consistency, and grammar should all be of prime quality. Thanks for pointing out these three specific examples. Answers to your questions:
      • The probably carcinogenic was italic as it is a formal term, now covered by an explanatory wikilink
      • Yes, the attribution of these two mediaeval terms is to Libavius, although that is of course always difficult to prove. He did use both terms in texts.
      • The use of an — in this context didn't feel optimal to me, so I copy-edited the whole paragraph to improve the whole line of text.
    • Additional to the above, I invited a non-chemist, native Am-English speaker to have a look at the text as well, and he contributed (thanks, Randy!) with some specific word improvements. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC).

• Comment the history section oddly stops at 19th century Europe; there is a little bit of extra information in the lead, but I'm only guessing that production picked up in the late 20th century due to its use in explosives and manufacturing. Is that the case? I think a fair bit more could be said about how use of the compound changed, and thus production increased in the history section.--Peta 00:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'll see if we can get some data on it, although it is not manufactured on a very large scale so statistics may be hard to come by. Physchim62 (talk) 08:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I did give a thorough (non-internet) investigation, but failed to find any serious production data. I can try again. but share PC's low expectation. Even nowadays, production on any industrial level seems to be non-existant, just lab-scale. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC).
    • Many inorganic "specialty" chemicals such as lead(II) nitrate are batch produced, with one batch lasting a particular supplier for years: it does not decompose on normal storage. Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as featured article, of course, congrats to those who have helped with the improvement drive. Physchim62 (talk) 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fin Whale

This article originally attracted my attention when it was linked from Wikipedia's main page relating to recent news about Iceland resuming whaling activities. At the time, it had been listed as a featured article candidate (link to previous nomination) very prematurely. The article has subsequently been overhauled and refined and has been peer reviewed (link to most recent peer review, link to older peer review). I believe that this article now meets the standards of featured articles.

For comparison, other featured articles about whales include Blue Whale (link to FAC discussion), Humpback Whale (link to FAC discussion), Right whale (link to FAC discussion), Sperm Whale (can't find FAC discussion), and Orca (can't find FAC discussion). Neil916 (Talk) 18:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Very nice, I Like!. - Tutmosis 19:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support To continue with Tutmosis's statement, high five! -- Kicking222 01:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

high five! great success! - Tutmosis 01:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support The only issue I noticed was that the foreign language links were out of order (they were ordered for the editor rather than the reader), but I used AWB to fix that for this nomination. Jay32183 05:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great job! Very comprehensive. The first paragraph of Taxonomy and first paragraph of Habitat and migration could use some sources though. Gzkn 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object for the moment, until the following issues are resolved: → Support
  • Per WP:LS, lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate. For example, there is a statement that fin whale is the second largest whale and living animal, but it is unsourced. I can't find it anywhere in the body. There are also similar sentences in the lead section that should be sourced.
  • Need some copyediting by someone who is not familiar with the subject. For example, in the following randomly picked sentences:
    • The family Balaenopteridae is believed to have diverged from the other families of the suborder Mysticeti as long ago as the middle Oligocene. → found a weasel word, unsourced, missing commas and redundancies.
    • On a global scale, populations of the three groups rarely mix, if at all. → is a bit odd and I think "population" is already in plural form, cmiiw.
    • Subspecies in the northern hemisphere are known to reach lengths of up to 24 metres (79 ft), and the Antarctic subspecies reaches lengths of up to 26.8 metres (88 ft),[6] although the overall average size of males and females is 19 and 20 metres (62 and 66 ft), respectively. → it is a confusing long statement. The conjunction word although there makes me confused about the comparison between maximum length with the average lengths. Also why are males and females average size compared with the maximum lengths in the first clause of that statement?
    • It was hypothesized to have arisen because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and circles to the right often while at the surface, presumably above a prey patch (circular feeding). → weasel words and unsourced speculation statement.
  • Per WP:MOS#Date_and_time, please remove these vague words to state a time: at present, to date, in recent years, etc.

— Indon (reply) — 11:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Reply: Taking your points in order:
    • Lead section has been sourced.
      • Sourced and corrected the evolution statement, but no commas are necessary in that sentence. Removed weasel word.
      • Simplified that statement.
      • Split the long confusing sentence into two easier-to-read sentences.
      • Not sure what to do with that one. Nobody can explain the asymmetric coloration, though several theories exist. The article has three sentences explaining this, and the citation (Tershy, 1992) is at the end of the third sentence.
    • Removed vague references to time.
  • Let me know if you see anything else. Thanks for your help. Neil916 (Talk) 16:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. It's good enough now. However, I still don't understand the sentence that begins with It was hypothesized.... Perhaps, my lack of English or I can't understand it because I'm a non-specialist reader of the subject. But I changed my vote. Good job ;-) — Indon (reply) — 11:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I rephrased that sentence to hopefully make the point a little clearer. See if it's better now. Neil916 (Talk) 22:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, now I see what you meant. Perhaps, if the sentence is rephrased as this: "There is an hypothesis among scientists that the asymetry is due to evolution, because the whale swims on its right side when surface lunging and it often circles to the right while at the surface above a prey patch.", it would have better reading, IMHO. — Indon (reply) — 10:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, comprehensive and several of Indon's suggestions have been applied to the article. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 20:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Girl Scouts of the USA

Self-nomination. Current GA on Girl Scouting in the USA. Had a peer review but little input was received, although what was suggested was taken in and improved (Wikipedia:Peer review/Girl Scouts of the USA). Darthgriz98 19:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose with a general read I found a few significant issues.

• American Heritage Girls (AHG) started in 1995 by some people concerned with the current program of the Girl Scouts. needs a cite or it reads as a POV statement on who these concerned people are, also is this still the "current program" or has that changed in the last 10 years.
• History lots of facts and figures but only one cite doesnt appear to support stats being quoted as it quotes 3.3 million members article quotes 3.7 whats the source for this.
• Activites - section uncited, maybe a news/media reference
• Awards and badges - section uncited, should be a hand book that could be quoted.
• Image:Gsusa.JPG is of an indentifiable but unknown person no release for use of their image

I'll have a more in depth read over the next couple of days and list any further concerns. Gnangarra 12:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Re: Gnangarra the image was an upload by the subject of the image (who is also the FAC nominator) and is a PD-self release. I don't understand what the problem here is. Please elaborate. Rlevse 14:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Yes, the girl in the picture is indeed myself, I give release and will give release on the page if need be. I have also reworked the American Heretiage Girl part it now is POV free and cited. Darthgriz98 14:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• The reason for noting is that the image appears to be a candid shot not a staged shot and as such author(photographer) of the image wouldnt normally be the subject of the image. Gnangarra 14:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• She added "The subject gives her release to be on Wikipedia freely as the subject is the author." Is this sufficient? I'm fairly certain the photographer gave her the photo to keep herself.Rlevse 14:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• the copyright license(PD) says I, the creator of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. If shes the creator/author of the image then she can release the image as PD. In this case she's the subject, not the creator/author as such she doesnt have the right to release as PD with such a statement Gnangarra 15:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• So she should get the photog to release it and state that in the tag? Rlevse 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• {{norightsreserved}} would be ideal if possible with a release statement from the photographer, otherwise {{Fairuse}} with a statement similar to this, The subject of the photo is myself (User:Darthgriz98}, and the photographer took the photo at my request, while I have released the image I am unable to indentify the photographer to obtain a Public domain release, that photographer may choose to exercise their rights. Gnangarra 15:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I have cited the 3.7 million, the article before that cited that there were 3.3 million Scouts in the 1990's, so now there is an official GSUSA statement from 2005. I have also cited the awards and badges. Darthgriz98 15:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, to see your working so diligently in addressing concerns, Gnangarra 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the tags. Darthgriz98 15:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support changed my Oppose to support, and congratulate the editors on their eforts in addressing concerns raised. Gnangarra 01:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Controversies - Creation of Studio 2B - This section has one footnote, but this leads to an article that doesn't mention the controversy itself. Thus the opinions and actions in the controversy are unreferenced. Kingbird 19:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The Studio 2B controversy section has been removed from the Studio 2B and the GSUSA articles as it is uncited and no citations can be found for it after multiple searches. Also, citations have been added for both the activities section and the Destinations section. Darthgriz98 20:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article. Kudos to Darthgriz98 for rapidly fixing Gnangarra's concerns. Sumoeagle179 23:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Further Comment Since your working so hard to improve the article and address concerns raised here are some more to think about.

• In the lead three sentences begining "The GSUSA" makes it a repetitive read early and discourages further reading.
• The redlink of Senior Roundups if you think its worthy of a full article either create a stub or delink and expand the sentence to a paragraph. Same applies to other redlinks. They always be linked again once the articles are written.
• Section on segregation I copy editted the first para, the second needs to be rewritten just disjoint facts(well cited) which doesnt make good prose.
• The promise is a significant official statement by members of GSUSA and therefore to say variations of the promise is okay, needs a cite from an official document.
• In age levels there been changes to the divisions in 1938, 1963, 1984 and 2003 as well as mention of a "current revision" these changes need to have cites.
• Awards and Badges is great place to get some 3d party cites from media or other organisations.

After your worked on these suggest that you put a request to User:Tony1 for an opinion if hes the time available. Gnangarra 00:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Taken care of. All citations for years are now in place, promise and laws have been cited, copyedits are taken care of, redlinks are gone, and honor pin is now cited. I am going to try to find some other award citations as I go. Darthgriz98 03:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • What is the GSUSA useage of Native American? I ask because the BSA preference is American Indian, and is based on feedback from the community. The American Indian Scouting Association is a BSA/GSUSA program.
  • What is a Roundup? This needs a definition.

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The deffinition of Roundup is now in the article. I am assuming that they would be called American Indians due to the program then. Darthgriz98 00:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. I already changed it to American Indian. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• No official stand on sexuality: the last sentence needs at least two cites- one for each position. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, note to whoever wrote that section of the article, if you have a source for those please step up, because I have never heard anything about gays before in Scouting in my experience. But in the meantime, I will look for a source. Nevermind, I found two.Darthgriz98 02:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• References: Book references on GSUSA and Other referenced sites- The book references have specific pages noted, but I don't see how this works into the article. I think the parts in quotes are chapters or sections. These should be put into standard citation templates or removed.
• Other referenced sites- These can probably be worked into the article as standard references. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 03:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Uniforms: I don't know how important uniforming is to the GSUSA, but it at least deserves a mention.
• Training: Is leadership training available for youth and adults?

--Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments I have a few concerns:

1. The title "Girl Scouts of the USA" should IMO, be "Girl Scouts of the United States of America." I don't think the acronym "USA," which is informal should be used in the formal title. Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. 2 paragraphs are necessary on the impact of Girl Scouts on American life. There are so many famous people who've been girl scouts. The organization is a big part of American life - there is also a light-hearted rivalry with the Boy Scouts. this must be covered.

Please see what can be done. Thanks, Rama's arrow 21:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with spelling out the name is that the formal name is "...USA", NOT "...United States of America". Griz will work on your second paragraph's issue. Rlevse 21:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)...PS, a redirect already exists from the spelled out version to the USA version. Rlevse 21:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the chartered name is Girl Scouts of the United States of America [6]. Perhaps the name was changed, or this might be a DBA (doing business as) name? --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably a DBA name as I've never even seen the Girl Scouts org use the spelled out name. Anyway, no one uses the spelled out name.Rlevse 23:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have started a section on the impact of GSUSA on America, I will work on this more over the next few days as I attempt to balance my school time, so if I slow down on my edits, that's where I am, I won't give up though. Darthgriz98 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment-Do you know of any sources saying that there is a friendly rivalry between BSA and GSUSA? Darthgriz98 00:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Naah... that was a shot in the dark based on some of the deriding jokes men crack like "What are you, a girl scout?" Rama's arrow 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was friction between the two early on. See History of the Boy Scouts of America#Early controversies, last paragraph. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support --evrik ^(talk) 18:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support good article. I suggest improving "Impact on American life" to bring it equal focus to "Controversies." Rama's arrow 00:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the article still needs a decent copyediting before it's ready for FA; I played around, but it's been well over two months since I've actually done a copyedit of this style. — Deckiller 01:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article also needs a merge: Wing Scout should be merged into the article. The information can easily be compressed and worded into three paragraphs of FA-quality prose, which will only extend the article by 1-2 KB and give the article a complete feel. That should be it for orgnaizational and content issues (as far as I, a person who knows nothing about the details of scouts, can see). — Deckiller 05:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tackle this latter either today or tomorrow. Darthgriz98 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is there anyone opposed to the merge of Wing Scout with GSUSA? Darthgriz98 16:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Not if it can be done as proposed, otherwise it'd be a mess. Does Wing Scout warrant 3 paras in this article? Was it of that importance? Rlevse 20:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How about for now then I re-write the Wing Scout section so it doesn't sound like a campy brochure, and then see latter about mergeing it. The whole WS article needs proper citations as well if it was to be merged eventually. Darthgriz98 20:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Rlevse 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I fixed up that section. It needs citations, and for some reason the only thin I can come up with from Google is the year Mariner and Wing Scouts started.Darthgriz98 15:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prose comments — if possible, can some others critique the prose of this article? I went through it fairly quickly, so I'm not sure how everyone else feels. If necessary, I can allocate further time to this one. — Deckiller 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basiliscus

I feel this article might meet the criteria for a FA. I enjoyed writing it, I hope people will enjoy reading it. (Self nominated) BlaiseMuhaddib 14:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I found this informative, very well written, and very well sourced.Jeffpw 15:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support and comment. One of the first articles I tried to review! It is very nice to see it here. I think it is a nice article. Can you just rearrange or possibly merge these four citations in a row at the end of "Religious controversies". It is not nice the way it looks now.--Yannismarou 17:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  I modified the position of the references, I hope I addressed your concern.--BlaiseMuhaddib 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I found this to be a well written, well sourced article. definetly meets the criteria of a fa Pigottsm 19:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well done! Some minor quibbles:
  • When the chieftain of the Heruli, Odoacer, deposed Western Emperor Romulus Augustus, sending the imperial regalia to Constantinople, Zeno, who had just regained his throne, could not do anything more than appoint Odoacer dux of Italy, thus ending the Western Roman Empire. That sentence confused me...is there a missing "he" before "could not do"?
  • Avoid passive voice when possible. For example, However this interpretation is not accepted by all scholars, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus. "However, not all scholars accept this interpretation, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus." is stronger. Note also the missing comma.
  • The number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as the expenses of the expedition, have been differently calculated by historians.--> "calculated differently" sounds better IMO.
  • Caption: Hagia Sophia (here showed after the reconstruction ordered by Justinian I)... should probably be "here shown".
  • Maybe it's just me, but the last sentence seems an odd way to end... Gzkn 05:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review. I tried to address your points:

  • I rewrote the sentence in a (hopefully) clearer way: "Zeno had just regained his throne, and he could only appoint Odoacer dux of Italy. So the Western Roman Empire ended."
  • I introduced your sentence "However, not all scholars accept this interpretation, since other sources do not say anything about the foreign origin of Basiliscus."
  • I reworded the sentence to avoid passive form. It now reads: "Ancient and modern historians provided different estimantions for the number of ships and troops under the command of Basiliscus, as well as for the expenses of the expedition."
  • Obviously it is "shown". Pardon.
  • I like that sentence, it sounds like an epitaph. However, I am keen to remove/reword it, if it is necessary.--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 07:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• No motion, yet, but there are quite a few archaisms, possibly drawn from sources like Gibbon, and inversions. I am lending my shoulder to the stone, but I think the mock-Latinate structures are serious interference to readers and therefore cannot support without a thorough updating of syntax. As for sources, I do wonder about using Gibbon after all these years. I won't say that Gibbon is wrong, and this isn't an academic paper (where old references are rejected), but shipping Gibbon into one's article is like transporting nitroglycerine: one needs to be very careful and thoughtful about it. Geogre 10:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

  I used Gibbon because I like his prose. Wherever I found the primary sources for his words, I used them. I also used more recent secondary sources to support his claims, when it was possible. Consider also that Gibbon is necessary only in a limited part of the article, the anti-Vandal expedition, and that I found no ancient or modern source confuting his claims (otherwise I would have dropped him).--BlaiseMuhaddib 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I like Gibbon's writing, as well, although I prefer the more direct structures of Swift and clearer periods of Addison and see in Gibbon one instance of the overly florid style that would culminate in the calumny of Macaulay, but the point is that Gibbon's style is off-putting when mixed with contemporary prose and is faulty in a short, informational article, because its archaisms (and they were archaisms in 1780) are spice that, in his works, flavor the buffet but, in our short articles, merely jar. His validity is still secure as it has ever been, but he has been corrected enough in enough areas that he should be understood as a man who is synthesizing ancient secondaries. He is limited by his own sources and his assumptions, and therefore it's at least worth letting the reader know that you're using a fellow whose work may carry its own limitations. Geogre 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Would you be so kind to tell me exactly which archaism are present? I would gladly accept collaboration on this matter.--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed, I would never dream of objecting on those grounds, and, as I said, I am trying to help. My initial comment was more a hope for spurring you on and an explanation of the use of Gibbon. I was saying, essentially, "I endorse, except that we probably need to finish combing archaisms and strained structures," and I definitely include myself in the "we." Geogre 19:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Don't worry, I understood your reasons. My problem is that I am not a native English speaker, so I do not recognize the archaisms you were talking about.--BlaiseMuhaddib 20:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very informative, well organized, nicely referenced, deserving of featured status. Hello32020 02:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. The references should be updated: Western historiography has evolved a lot since the 18th century. The image of Hagia Sophia is both irrelevant and annoying. It could be appended to any article about a Byzantine emperor. One thing which I don't appreciate about Wikipedia is that an article about a minor figure (such as Basiliscus) may take twice as much space as an article about an emperor who reigned for decades (such as Zeno). As a result, historical perspective tends to be distorted: unexperienced readers would assume that Basiliscus is more important than Zeno. This is a general comment, not a problem of the nominator, of course. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  • As regards references: Secondary sources used are dated 1923, 1998, 1998, 1788, 1986, 2003, 1980, 1917, 2001, 1870, and (in notes) 2002, 1998. Gibbon is presented as a source per se, Smith is a good summary of ancient sources. I think they should be removed only if their statements have been rejected by modern historiography, a thing I am not aware of.
  • Hagia Sophia image is relevant, as Basiliscus hid in this church to avoid popular lynching. I do not know any other Byzantine Emperor so related to this church, apart Justinian, of course.
  • You are right about Zeno's article. The only thing I can say is that having this article clearly marked as FA would help readers to understand its quality is higer than Zeno's ;-) --BlaiseMuhaddib 10:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  I removed Gibbon from the references, substituting him with primary and more modern secondary sources. Let me know.--BlaiseMuhaddib 16:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Notes & queries: I am endeavoring to update language where I feel it is incommunicative, but I welcome the principle author's review; I try to use edit summaries that enumerate changes. Questions: 1) Rule: Those subsections create some very, very minor subheads. I would prefer that this be one section. 2) Rule: Corruption & Fire: "ith the help of the Prefect, and Verina's longtime favourite, Epinicus": Is Epinicus the prefect and the favorite, or did the emperor perform the extortion with the help of two persons? 3 Ibid: Is "extort" really accurate? If so, can you not give us some means by which he could exert such force? What was the threat he held? A single clause could do the trick, and it might help contextualize the religious controversies, later. 3) Rule: "raise to the purple." I made this change once, as I regard it as an archaic circumlocution, but it is used a second time in the "Contrast with collaborators" section, where what seems to be implied is that Verina was going to bring her lover to replace Basiliscus, but "purple" is also a term used for the senatorial rank in different eras; because the phrase is euphemistic, we can't be sure what she was planning, here. 3) Rule: Contrast: There are two "unavoidable" statements made, with citations. I understand the literature saying that it was virtually unavoidable that there be these conflicts, but to actually be preclusive is strong enough to challenge readers. Mediate a bit with something like "It may have been unavoidable that these crises occur, as Patricius...." 4) Rule: Controversies: Probably wise to link simply to Monophysite controversy and let that article do the heavy lifting and concentrate instead on how the political implications played out at Byzantium. That's pretty much it. Geogre 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

  Some answers:

  1. I feel the division of "Rule" section is more functional, as it helps to point down the main issues.
  2. Epinicus was both Prefect and favourite
  3. "extort" is the exact word used by Friell, but I did not find any other reference
  4. "purple" is here always used in the sense of imperial dignity
  5. I reworded the bit about unavoidability
  6. The explanation of the Monophysite controversy was required in a previous peer review.

  A question: I did not understand the edit about Peter Fullo, what was the problem you solved?

  Thanks, BlaiseMuhaddib 15:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  Feel free to change the Fullo business back. My thinking was that we had a rush of names involved in the Monophysite controversy. Some of these people were very important and importantly controversial and active, some less so (from the point of view of our articles). Aesthetically, I always feel that a list of "Tom Jones, Sam Cooke, and Abraham Lincoln" loses the significance of the figures somewhat by having a solidly blue line. To break up the blue line, and to have people see a link when they'd be most curious, I put the link to Fullo away from the others. Again, it's purely an accidental and nothing more. Geogre 16:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support on one condition: If we can heal that "with the help of the Prefect..." sentence to clarify whether we're talking about one or two people, I support. It's an interesting article on a very peculiar footnote of Byzantine history. All qualms aside, the article does its job. Geogre 21:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support. Somewhat too short, but good writing and sourcing, as well as the subject generally justify considering it a good work meeting the criteria. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 12:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  I changed it to "with the help of the Prefect Epinicus, Verina's longtime favourite". I hope this addresses your concern.

• Support, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Fabian

Self-nom. I just finished redoing this article by adding loads of information, and I believe it adheres to the featured article criteria; I think it's well written and it had a copyedit, it is very comprehensive (perhaps too much so, but I'll address that in a moment), every last statement is sourced using {{tl:cite web}}, it is neutral, it's stable as I've been the main person editing it recently, it has a good lede section, good headings, not too long of TOC, images (two of which are Fair use and have fair use rationales), and good length. It might seem like it is too long with unnecessary detail, but I tried to give thorough information on the hurricane to make it more realistic. If an article only gives statistics by saying "The hurricane caused $300 million in damage, destroyed X houses, killed four, etc." it would be boring and not representative of what the storm did. The hurricane is one of Bermuda's worst natural disasters, and I wanted to emphasize that. So, without further ado, Support for it to become an FA. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose on criterion 3, neither of the fair use images really adds much to this article, neither of those articles is in any way iconic. The only real encyclopedic value to them is the images contained within them, the remainder of them do not add anything. As AP photos they aren't usable to discuss the storm, the press coverage is not significant enough to justify one let alone two images. I'd rather have no images than two bad FU images, free images of the damage can be obtained.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, which of the two would be better to keep? I think it is better to have at least one damage picture; I checked, and those two are the only images. No free damage pics exist. Or, should I remove both per what you said? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only two images? Sure... If a non-free image is available on Flickr, getting a free image could be as little as an email away. Neither of those newspaper images is particularly useful: No image > bad non-free images (FU criterion 1 is dodgy here)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Forgot about flickr. We should leave the images for now until I get responses to the emails I wrote. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I got a response from one; didn't want to. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I haven't gotten another email yet. Assuming they don't allow it, what should we do? I don't want the FAC to fail for the simple matter of an image. Should both of the np images be removed? Just one? Leave them?? Hurricanehink (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Remove both, they aren't that helpful. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If they reply and agree, you can always add other pics in the future. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well made article on a subject that is hard to find information on. Giving my support. Hello32020 21:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support for becoming the best resource available for an important storm yet difficult to find information on. Good job! CrazyC83 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• 'Weak oppose per User:Nilfanion. Let's wait until the emails to the flickr image-holders are answered. It won't be the end of the world if this article is promoted a couple of weeks from now. It'll certainly get there, and exacting quality matters more than whether it's there now or in half a month. --Zantastik talk 04:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed those images, given that they either said no or took too long to respond. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, these hurricane FACs seem almost unfailingly good. I don't know about the copyright status of the images; intuitively I would think it's problematic, but I also really like the idea of using newspaper clipping images. I don't think I've seen that done before, and it's a neat way to add an extra dimension to the content. I'm supporting in spite of that lingering issue because I trust that the authors will resolve it correctly. Everyking 08:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 47 sources on a hurricane I don't recall? My goodness. Very impressive, as usual. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as the image issue is now dealt with. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, brilliant article, particularly comprehensive. - Mailer Diablo 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1994 San Marino Grand Prix

Self-nomination. Article has reached Good Article status and has had all issues raised during a Peer Review addressed. I have checked it against each of the FA criteria and believe it meets them all. I feel it is ready to be considered as a candidate for FA status. Alexj2002 19:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Object.Support Good work, and I think this can become featured, but it needs some more attention first. (1) First, the article needs to be rewritten slightly to be more accessible to those without a good background in racing. Specifically, specialized terms (like "Qualified in pole") are used without context, and there is a general lack of wikilinks to general topics on car racing. For instance, there should be a link to Formula one in the lead. Terms, not just proper nouns, should have wikilinks when there's an article on them. The introduction of all those names was a bit overwhelming to me. I would suggest, since the race results are given at the bottom anyway, not to list the drivers who merely "won points" in the lead. (2) General writing issues: the word "Imola" didn't have any context when I read it in the article: it never said the race took place in Imola, except in the infobox. Also, I feel like the word "whilst" is being pounded into my head in certain sections, and I find it very odd: to me (I realize this may be a British/American English thing), "whilst" is evocative of old language, often used to make something sound more refined. The British/American usage aside, I think this indicates that the sentence structure is a little too repetitive in the article. (3) Images: I find the images somewhat unsatisfactory -- the two maps are good, but the screenshot of Senna's crash is terrible, I can't make out anything, and it seems like there are other windows in the shot that aren't relevant. There are plenty of other things that could be illustrated with images here: a real picture of the racetrack, or the trophy, a picture of some of the key players (especially Senna). This may be the hardest of my comments to address, but I really do think it's critical: in a subject like this we should have pictures. (4) Minor points: why "legacy of the race"? Seems sort of heavy-handed; why not simply "legacy" or "aftermath"? Similarly, why is it "Classification" rather than "results"? Finally, I don't understand some of the stuff written in the notes section: those should be incorporated into an actual paragraph. Okay, that's all. I'll be glad to support if these points are addressed. Mangojuice^talk 14:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for your lengthy list of suggestions, you've raised quite a few issues that didn't come up in peer review so I'll try and work on the weaknesses you suggested. Classification is used because that's what was decided by the Formula One Wikiproject (here:Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Example race report) so standard amongst all F1 race reports and is also the official term used when the results are shown at the end of each race on the TV. Alexj2002 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I've added wikilinks to most of the technical terms and/or tried to explain them better in the article. I've put Imola into context in the opening sentence and replaced 7 of the 8 whilst's in the article (yeah there did seem to be a lot in there). The points scorers have been removed from the lead. The notes section has been re-done and the "Legacy of the race" heading has been changed to "Post race". I've left classification in, as it's the term used by the sport's governing body, the FIA: [7]. The only thing left to address now is the pictures. It's quite difficult finding a suitable freely licenced image. There are pictures of the drivers available, but wearing a different team's overalls and I think this would be confusing/misleading. I'll keep checking commons and a few other places and see if any suitable ones come up. Alexj2002 18:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I agree that all my objections have been dealt with except for the pictures. At the very least, the trial picture should be edited so we can see just the crash occurring: that picture is just bad as it is. Mangojuice^talk 10:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the trial picture and I've instead put in photos of some of the drivers involved (Barrichello and Senna) which I believe are suitable. Alexj2002 10:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That's better. I still think the article could be better illustrated, but I think this meets the FA guidelines now. Changed to support. BTW, I think "not guilty" is preferable over "not-guilty". Mangojuice^talk 11:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: A memorable Grand Prix and a great article!--Skully Collins 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support with comments. Firstly, this may be a matter of personal preference but low ordinal numbers look better written out, for example "third" is better than "3rd". Secondly, an important source is not referred to in the footnotes and possibly has not been checked for important information: Professor Sid Watkins' book "Life at the limit" (ISBN 0330351397). Thirdly, as I remember, the BBC's own camera at the Grand Prix was an innovation - they had only just managed to persuade their bosses to allow them to have a camera, and San Marino 1994 was the first Grand Prix at which it appeared. This is probably worth mentioning. David | Talk 15:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

'Comment I thought something simular with the BBC camera. It would have made sense, seems as it was the first GP of the season to be held in Europe. If a source could be found, it can be included in the article. Alexj2002 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to remember where I saw this - might have been Murray Walker's autobiography. David | Talk 21:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Is this really how these words are spelled: "tyre", "kerb", and "nosecone"? What's a "chicane" and a "paddock"? Is it "pit-lane" or "pitlane"? Did anything else happen with Érik Comas? The prose needs some work as well; sentences like "Pedro Lamy, who started behind him, was unsighted and hit the back of Lehto's car" ("unsighted"? even if we call that a real word, who was doing the seeing?) and "There was to be one more incident, when" (all of this can be deleted without effect). Overall though, not bad. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Yes, that is how those words are spelt! In UK English anyway, which is what most of the F1 articles are written in (longstanding convention!). Use of UK spellings is, of course, not a reason for objecting (unless usage is inconsistent, of course). 'Unsighted' is fairly common journalistic usage for precisely this situation - meaning that the person who was unsighted cannot see what is in front of him. However, that can be changed fairly simply to something more easily understood by all. I'll have a stab at it now, as well as clarifying some of the specialist terms you mention. 4u1e 04:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - done. Better? Open to suggestions if not! 4u1e 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see anything about Érik Comas—did he hit Senna's car? Or almost hit it? I'll support once I'm done with the copyedit, but this looks good. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That I don't remember, I'm afraid. I think probably not, it's probably just that it's completely unacceptable to send a car out under red flags - a really big no-no because of the danger to the marshals. Anyone got the reference for this bit? --4u1e 12:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No he didn't hit Senna's car because Senna's car was off the track. He reached the corner where Senna's crash had taken place however before stopping and there were several medical cars he came close to hitting. There is actually a video of this on Youtube: [8]. Alexj2002 12:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That part feels a little disconnected; it seems like the story is going to tell us that Comas smashed into Senna causing even more problems. A brief phrase clarifying that nothing actually came of it would be good to add. One more thing:

• "The incident brought out the safety car, which picked the field up at the end of the pit lane after the debris on the start/finish line and during this period tyre temperatures dropped." An incident can't really bring anything out; the safety car is responding to the incident. What does "picked the field up" mean? And what on earth does it have to do with tyre temperatures? This is sort of explained in the following sentence, but I get the impression that one needs to understand the function of a safety car to understand what this is saying (and I don't). --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In the article the word safety car in the section you quoted is Wikilinked to the Safety Car article. I'll have a go at rewording the other bits. Alexj2002 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

To be fair to Spangineer - I linked it after he raised the point!--4u1e 21:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've clarified the Comas incident, and reworded the safety car bit to clarify a few things. Alexj2002 10:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Nowhere near a "professional" standard of writing as required. A particular problem throughout is the underuse of commas that almost all readers would agree would make it easier to read. Here are examples:

"The race was eventually won by Michael Schumacher giving him a maximum 30 points after 3 rounds." (Schumacher,)

"Schumacher said however in the press conference" --> "Schumacher said, however, in the press conference", but smoother to start with "However, Schumacher ...".

But that's not all. Here are examples from the lead.

• • "It was the 3rd race of the 1994 Formula One season, and the first race of the season." 3rd/first—choose one form or the other and be consistent. Spelling out for less than 10 is standard.
  • "The race weekend was marred by the deaths of two drivers and numerous other accidents and injuries, and was described by BBC Television commentator Murray Walker as "the blackest day for Grand Prix racing that I can remember".[1] Austrian Roland Ratzenberger and three-time world champion Ayrton Senna were the two drivers who lost their lives, Ratzenberger during a qualifying session and Senna during the race." Why not treat the "two drivers" all at once, and relocate the other info ("other accidents", "BBC") after this?
  • "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and many track layouts and car designs were changed." Keep the grammar consistent for our poor readers: "It led to the reforming of the Grand Prix Drivers' Association, and the changing of many track layouts and car designs."
  • "Since the race, numerous efforts have been made to slow Formula One cars down and new circuits such as Bahrain International Circuit designed to incorporate large run-off areas to slow cars before they collide with a wall, should the driver lose control." Not a grammatical sentence, and short of commas.
  • "to conclude including"—it's what Fowler called a "jingle", even with a comma after "conclude". And why not remove "to conclude" anyway? Makes no difference to the sense.
  • "following the original not guilty verdict." I think that all English speakers would want a hyphenated "not-guilty" here. Tony 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I'll take your suggestions onboard and improve the article. The only point I disagree with is your final one. I think not guilty is the correct usage (without hyphen). The Wikipedia article Acquittal uses no hyphen, but that can't be regarded as a reputable source. I believe however that the usage of "not guilty" by organisations such as the BBC [9], CNN [10] and the UK Government's Criminal Justice System [11] would mean that the hyphen is not require, and definately shows that not all English speakers would want a hyphen. Alexj2002 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the points you brought up. If you want to reword/change any parts of the writing you believe are weak in order to improve it to what you'd regard as a "professional standard" that'd be great. Alexj2002 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right about the hyphen. I looked it up on the phrase checker ([12]) and found only one instance with hyphen (an American one, at that). I'd use it, but you don't have to. Tony 05:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Object at present. I'd like to see a picture at the top of the page - either a photo of the actual grand prix (which doesn't appear anywhere in the article at present) or a larger map of the circuit. The pictures of Senna and Barrichello aren't put in context - were they even taken around the same time as the grand prix. Maybe it's just my eyes, but the writing on both the maps showing the location of the crashes seems slightly small. Is there anyway to graphically show the change in design of Imola after 1994. But other than that, it is well written and well referenced in my opinion and close to being FA standard. Trebor 10:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I've altered to captions to give more context - more what you meant? The pictures are not from the time of the GP, but I know Alex has put much effort into locating pictures with suitable licensing and it appears that better are not available. 4u1e

I've had another trawl through Wikicommons, Flickr etc and can find nothing usable of the circuit itself. There is a diagram showing the circuit changes, which I have added, but it presumably suffers from the same size problems as the others. 4u1e

Sorry, I realised later my response was rather harsh. I'm neutral at present - I think the article looks slighly odd without a picture from the race, but if nothing usable is available then obviously it can't be improved. You're right, I don't think the map of the circuit changes adds much as it's quite hard to see what's changed. I do think it is written and referenced well, it's just the slight incongruence of the images to that (which is not your fault and I'm sure you've done your best). Trebor 10:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I could easily increase the size of the text in the maps if it's too small. Just let me know. Alexj2002 14:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just the "Villeneuve" and "Tamburello" which are slightly hard to read on my screen. Trebor 16:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've increased the size of both. Alexj2002 17:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's better. By the way, it's your call as to whether the map of circuit changes is worth putting in at the bottom. Now it's there, I'm not sure how much it improves the article.Trebor 18:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Just realised I never actually added my support. Good treatment of one of the most important (in terms of worldwide news coverage at time) sporting events of the last 20 years at least. Good work has been done to make the article accessible to non-motorsport fans. 4u1e 16:30, 24 October 2006(UTC)

Strong Support A fantastic article, very detailed, a pretty concise adaptation of a very dark weekend. I don't believe it to be over complicated either, the terms mentioned are not excessively jargonistic. These terms are easily picked up if not previously known, to change them would be dumbing down a well written article. Gdkh 12:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. There is problem with note 5. It should be fixed! Take care of this minor things!--Yannismarou 20:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed - thanks. It's actually ref 4 again. Ref 7 doesn't seem to be quite finished either though - we'll get that fixed. --4u1e 08:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pierre Rossier

Self-nomination. Recent research has revealed much new information about this previously little-known but significant photographer who was the first to produce commercial photographs of China, Japan, the Philippines and Siam (Thailand). He also trained many of the first generation of Japanese photographers, thereby helping to kick-start the history of photography in Japan. Rossier's story is interesting and the article contains nearly all of what is known about him, and I believe the article would make a good Featured Article. Pinkville 02:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article seems to meet all the criteria. -- Hoary 03:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment please fix references at the end of sentences. The superscript should follow the period.^[1] -- Samir धर्म 03:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some kind person appears to have already acted on this suggestion. -- Hoary 06:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. I've been testing an automated tool to fix the refs in accord with WP:FN. Gimmetrow 00:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support this is good stuff! Well written -- Samir धर्म 17:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pinkville 18:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Even the first line does not conform to WP:MOS. Red links should be eliminated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose you mean the first line of the text. What you see there depends on the size of your browser window, etc.; I see (after markup stripping) Pierre Joseph Rossier (born 16 July 1829 - died between 1883 and 1898) was a pioneering.... and I don't know what's wrong with that. And either the string "red" doesn't appear in WP:MOS or something's wrong with my browser's search function. Where are the beefs? -- Hoary 13:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Assuming the objection to the first line is based on the uncommon dates format for Rossier, these are the most accurate dates available and of far more use than any alternative I can think of (e.g. 16 July 1829 - death unknown, et al). I can't see anything that goes against the Manual of Style, though, can you be more specific?. As for red links, Wikipedia has relatively few articles dealing with 19th century history in Asia (in contrast to articles on the Final Fantasy universe, for example), and one possible benefit of FA status for this or any other article in this field is that it may encourage other editors to turn those red links blue. Also, between now and some future date when this article might find its way on to the Main Page, at least some of those red links will turn blue anyway (as part of an ongoing personal and small group project). Pinkville 14:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I changed the first line per WP:DASH and revoked my vote. I don't know whether there is any specific guideline (WP:CONTEXT?), but red links look slovenly to me. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Um, well [cough], I wouldn't rush to disagree, but I'm a little surprised that you of all people would say that.... Hoary 09:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • And what is wrong with me? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Erm, nothing, nothing, but by your own choice your own link is a bit reddish. -- Hoary 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Nope, your comment would be valid for User:Blnguyen rather than me. These are different shades of red, you know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Now all the red-links are blue... Pinkville 02:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• nice photos in the article; two wishes: a reference to where would be many more of them; a photo of the photographer to start off the article. Hmains 01:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have the same wishes, unfortunately there is only one source of Rossier images on the Internet: Terry Bennett's excellent site - Old Japan (from which these were taken - there are only two or three more Rossier photos on the site). Bennett has a new book coming out this fall with much material on Rossier, so there may be more images available in the not-too distant future. As far as I know there are no known images of Rossier himself. Pinkville 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Hmains 01:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful read, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice concise well written article. To the point and well referenced. Giano 08:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really interesting article that chugs along in a nice style. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. We need more FAs on art topics, and this one is really good, to me because of the subject. The article looks a little lean right now, so don't let what looks like a successful FAC keep you from expanding and adding more text. I would like to see Stereoscope and Stereoscopy linked and more discussion of early photography. DVD+ R/W 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. "Stereoscope" is linked through the term "stereographs", though perhaps more could be said on the subject in this article. As for early photography... I'll see what can be reasonably added in the context of Rossier/China/Japan. Pinkville 21:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there it is. But still, please expand some before it is on the main page. For some reason I want to read about the relevant technical photographic history, but there could be other ways to expand it. Odd that there aren't any in other language links. I ran check usage on the images and found nothing. It'll be translated eventually I'm sure and I'd also like to see the zh: and ja: versions. DVD+ R/W 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you. The vast majority of the information in this article has only come to light in the past 2 or 3 years and nothing longer than a few pages has been published on Rossier, so this and the Bennett online article are the two most comprehensive and accessible sources on the photographer. There are some brief online references to Rossier in French and Italian, but that's about it. And there is material in Japanese which has yet to be translated into English. The only confirmed Rossier images available online are those on Bennett's site and one thumbnail on a Swiss museum website. I uploaded the images in this article myself, so they're only recent additions to the Commons. But if you're referring to a lack of articles on early photographic techniques and technology, then that's also not surprising because there are only a handful of Wikipedia editors who have touched the subject. Most photographic technical subjects that have been covered in WP tend to concern current or recent photography and often deal with camera brand names, etc. Please set me straight if I've misunderstood your comment. :~) Pinkville 03:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to say that I wanted to read more about it, that's all. DVD+ R/W 05:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, a couple of us are very slowly filling in some of the gaps in Japanese photography. I'm particularly interested in early photography in Asia and related issues (like hand-colouring). So by and by... Thanks for your comments. Pinkville 15:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't comment on zh:WP but as for ja:WP, photography -- even photography in Japan or by Japanese people -- is only sketchily represented. A lot of the articles that do exist on Japanese photographers are little more than entries for the tersest and driest kind of traditional biographical dictionary ("born there and then, graduated from this univ, won that prize"; that's it). Not that I have any right to complain, as some articles I've written here are just as bad. (Semi-relevantly, here's a surprise.) -- Hoary 06:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Hurley article is a surprise. I have his English article on a to do list (at least to add some info). Pinkville 15:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] W. S. Gilbert

Probably one of the best short biolgraphies of W.S. Gilbert out there. Detailed, covers all aspects of his life and work (which few short biographies about him do), and uses a format developed for the article after that of Demosthenes that I think works really well. Has had two peer-reviews, of which I think everything was dealt with. Of course, this is a self-nomination. Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. I urge to remove the list of Gilbert's works into a separate page. You may check Nikolai Gogol (which I just completed) to see how this may be implemented. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Query: We have removed most of the works to another page, what remains is a list of those with articles (or those so important that they couldn't be left off): should this simplified section still be removed? It certainly can be, but... Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Ah, well. Fixed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 09:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks much nicer this way. Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great. Mangojuice^talk 16:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can we just hang on for another 3 days, just to tighten up the references and prose? Once that's done, the article will look truly magnificent. Moreschi 08:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The FA status is supposed to take a week or so anyway, I think, so it'll be fixed up by then. Adam Cuerden ^talk 12:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(For those confused, I invited Moreschi into the project to point out everything he thought needed citing that wasn't - it's hard, when you're too close to the subject, to know what might jump out to other readers. Then I went through reference works and cited everything. The footnotes grew from 15 three days ago to 41 now, many of those footnotes containing multiple cites - an effective citing up, I think. Adam Cuerden ^talk 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here is the BIO peer review, which is only a week old. It is helpful to reviewers to link to old reviews, so we don't have to do the same work twice. Sandy 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• I apologise for not linking. I think, however, that everything that came up was dealt with? Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All the concerns of the two Biography reviews have been addressed.--Yannismarou 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• SupportOppose. Not enough refs: there are still entire unreferenced paragraphs. Please add more inline references, I'd be happy to support than.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Added a few more refs. If there's anyhing else, tell me - should cite the Who's who bit, but I'll get that Wednesday or so. Almost sure it's in Stedman, but better to check first. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Great, looks much better now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Did the pragmatic thing and temporarily removed the Who's Who bit: It can easily be added back in later, when referenced, and since I think it's the only non-cited, non-trivial fact, I didn't want it holding up FA. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I'm a contributor, but I can confirm that these references have been checked, and that the authorities in the field agree with the bibliography. -- Ssilvers 02:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well worthy of featured article status. A thorough treatment of the whole of Gilbert's life and literary career (not just the G&S years). Heavily referenced too. Obviously a lot of hard work and research has gone into it. My congratulations to the authors.--Folantin 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Reads well and easily. Informative and seemingly well referenced. Good job.--Monocrat 18:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - as involved party. All my requests for cites were met and I've tightened up the prose. It looks good. Moreschi 08:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and very informative, covering his life and the full range of works and not just those for which he his best known. PaulJones 08:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is the very model of a modern Wiki article. Guy 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boshin War

Detailed article on the little known subject of the Boshin War (the 1868 Japanese civil war that led to the Meiji restoration), with lots of related links. This article clarifies some of the historical background to the 2003 Hollywood movie "The Last Samurai". Essentially self-nom PHG 15:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support- This war has been a HIGHLY ignored subject in Japanese and world history, and I find it HIGHLY ironic given how formative it was to be on the subsequent decades, as well as the historical discourse that emerged on the period. I'll support this nomination one hundred percent. -Tadakuni 16:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written, pictures, links, sections, references - even references in Japanese. Ooh. LordAmeth 16:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: where are the citations? (A map would be nice too, but not necessarily something I would object over.) Kirill Lokshin 17:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• The citations are at the bottom of the page under "Notes", and growing. Should you wish any particular statement to be qualified, please advise. Regards. PHG 17:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• General growth is fine; I'd like to see, on average, at least one citation in every paragraph, as otherwise it's quite difficult to guess where the material is coming from. (Are there no other major works on the conflict, incidentally? I would have expected that this topic would attract a greater variety of historians; is this not the case?)

• Essentially done for the citations. Surprisingly very little English material is available on the subject (the French have more, due to the involvement of Jules Brunet). A search for Boshin War on Amazon gives nothing specific on this subject.PHG 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• "The Cambridge History of Japan Volume 5: The Nineteenth Century" devotes a page to the conflict (page 358, which is in Chapter 5, "The Meiji Restoration," by Marius B. Jansen).

• Aside from that, I'd also suggest increasing the lead to at least two paragraphs, and staggering some more images to the left margin, as the right one is getting quite crowded. Kirill Lokshin 18:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done (longer introduction). Moved a few images on the left. Regards. PHG 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good. Is there any chance of working the links from the "See also" section into the text and eliminating it? Kirill Lokshin 19:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Done. The links are in the article now. PHG 05:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, support from me, then. Kirill Lokshin 06:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Terrific article of high importance. Very many details and good pictures. Hello32020 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I think this is superb. Rlevse 21:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The lead is great, the vocab exact, and the significance understandable. The paragraphs are laconic, which initially made me feel alarmed, but said all that they needed to say. The use of piped links is subtle, but to me, a sign of professionalism. Good work. Gracenotes ^T § 22:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per Tadakuni. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 04:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Since I didn't see the article go through peer review, most of my comments are the sorts of things that would have been mentioned there.
  • First, there are both US and Commonwealth varieties of English in the article. These should be made uniform, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy, they should be the variety used in the first substantial contributions to the article. Examples of words in one or another variety include "favorable," "burnt," "harbour," "defences."

• Done (I think). PHG 12:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The term kangun is first introduced in the caption of a photo. It would be best to introduce it in the main text or to eliminate it, e.g. in favor of a term in English.

• Done. I dropped the premature mention in the caption.PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The terms "shogunate" and "bakufu" are used interchangeably. Readers will find it easiest to follow the article if one term is used consistently and the other eliminated. Since "shogunate" contains the word "shogun," it's easy for non-specialists to understand (in my opinion).

• Done. I followed your advice and harmonized with "Shogunate". PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The closing sentence of the lead section reads, "facts which tend to be overlooked in modern history." This is opinion about modern history, not fact about the Boshin War, and I recommend removing it from the article.

• Right. Dropped it. PHG 11:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The same person has two names in the article: Keiki and Yoshinobu. It's easiest for the reader if you select one and use it consistently.

• Done. Used Yoshinobu thoughout.PHG 11:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Political background
  • Early discontent
  • "Unequal treaties" should be lowercase.

• Done.PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Sonno joi is described in parentheses with the abbreviation "lit." I recommend spelling the word "literally" in full.

• Done. PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Barbarians" should be lowercase.

• DonePHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Words like "ronin," "samurai," and "daimyo" are English, but I recommend forming plurals without adding "s."

• DonePHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Southern coalition
  • Inserting "British" to make "the British bombardment of Kagoshima will remind the reader of the reason for the word "ironically."

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Satsuma and Chōshū are "southern" here but "western" later (see Aftermath:Pardon, and Westernization after all, "The western fiefs of Satsuma, Chōshū and Tosa...). For clarity, directions like these should be consistent.

Done PHG 11:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Surrender of Edo
  • "Eight" should be lowercase.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Resistance of the Northern Coalition
  • Substituting "managed to procure two of the three Gatling guns in Japan as well as 2,000 modern French rifles" is smoother.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Daimyo of Nagaoka" has uppercase "D" but elsewhere "daimyo of X" has lowercase; this should be made consistent.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Creation of the Ezo Republic
  • The phrase "handful of faithful French military advisers (notably Jules Brunet)" is a literal repeat; it would be nice to rephrase it.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Naval battle of Miyako Bay
  • The "rebels" organized a plan, but which side is the rebels at this time and place?

• The Shogunate side. Done. PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Battle of Hakodate
  • "Although Enomoto had resolved to fight to the end, and had sent his valuables to his adversary for safekeeping ( ... ), the general of the Imperial troops Kuroda Kiyotaka." -- this sentence is incomplete.

• Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Aftermath
  • Pardon, and Westernization after all
  • "Arguably" is what Wikipedians call a "weasel word." Consider whether the sentence is true or not, or rephrase the sentence in a way that it's true without "arguably."

• Thanks. Done PHG 11:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Later depictions of the war
  • "In modern summaries, the Meiji restoration is often described as a "bloodless revolution" leading to the sudden modernization of Japan." This is opinion about modern summaries, not fact about the Boshin War, and I advocate removing it, along with editing the beginning of the next sentence. "Admittedly" is unnecessary and I recommend deleting it.

• Took away "Admittedly". However I would tend to think that a discussion of modern accounts of the Boshin War also deserves mention in a comprehensive article on the Boshin War. PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Later Japanese depictions of the war ..." is a statement about (need this be said?) later Japanese depictions, not about the war. Is it necessary in an article on the war?

• Same as above. I would tend to think that a discussion of later depictions of the Boshin War deserves mention in a comprehensive article on the Boshin War. PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Cinematographic adaptations
  • This section is cursory and Western. "The Last Samurai" is worth mentioning, but many additional films treat the subject, which is a recurring topic for television drama as well. This is an excellent opportunity to introduce the English-speaking reader to the body of Japanese work on the subject. One recent example is ja:壬生義士伝, a January 2 ten-hour production starring Ken Watanabe.

• Done. Thanks. PHG 11:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Most of these comments are minor. I expect that this outstanding article can become featured very quickly. Fg2 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the great and highly detailed feedback! PHG 11:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Enthusiastic support and thanks for a great article! Fg2 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The caption for Image:Land & Naval Battle of Hakodate.JPG is gargantuan and creates an image jam in the text. Should be pruned. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• I changed the side of the image and shortened the text with a reference so as to avoid the image jam. Thank you. PHG 17:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I'd like to support this, but I can't just yet. The prose is a little rough and flabby. The parenthetical statements in the very first paragraph need to be cleaned up, and some verbiage could be trimmed. The phrase "In a final chapter to the war, the Commander-in-Chief of the Shogun's Navy Enomoto Takeaki" is used twice verbatim within a few paragraphs, suggesting that much more copy-editing needs to be done. Also, once Yoshinobu surrendered and the resistence declared a republic, can they still be called a "Shogunate rebels?" I'd like to try my hand at the copy, if you'd not mind. Other, random issues: When, where, and how was Yoshinobu captured? What was the role of the foreign powers? (I know that the Europeans withheld a warship from the Imperial faction for a while, until the government gave assurances, which they reneged on, that it wouldn't be used in the conflict. See: Keene's Emperor of Japan.) Could we get an English term for "Kangun," and paralleling "Shogunate" in the infobox, how about something like "Imperial faction/court?" Meiji and those surrounding him surely had things to say or rescripts to issue. "Later depictions of the war" could probably be combined with "Cinematographic adaptations," retaining the former's title. Also, I'm worried about the images: perhaps it's just my browser, but some of the text seems obscured by one or two. The second image of Enomoto could probably be cut without loss, and the very last image's caption seems a little big. Lastly, perhaps you could use Template:nihongo for all the kanji? --Monocrat 19:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments and edits. I think most of your points have been addressed by now (I am not sure how to deal with the Nihongo Template though). The warship you mention is the Kotetsu, which was released after the Meiji government was established in October 1868. I added elements on the diplomatic position of foreign powers throughout the conflict. Regards. PHG 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've made a bunch more edits for content, but the prose still needs a lot of work. There are some untranslated kanji, such as 公議政体派. Could you give me romaji, and I can fiddle with the template? I'll leave more comments on the talk page.--Monocrat 06:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the edits. The romaji for 公議政体派 is "KōgiSeitaiHa". I'm shifting to the talk page as well. PHG 18:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Full disclosure: I've worked a lot on this over the past few days. There are a few minor things, like missing page citations, that I would like to see. An extra set of eyes copy-editing would be a good idea, too. But I think the article is ready to be featured. I might add one or two more things here and there when I get a chance, but they're small. One note, though: I would exercise caution in adding more images or changing the settings of existing ones.--Monocrat 17:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for all the great edits! PHG 17:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I don't think we should consider an article about a military campaign featured class until it has a map. There are also some unreferenced paras; please increase referencing density. 'Franco-Japanese relations' section is a stub section, please expand or merge.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Good idea, map done, paragraph merged. Essentially all paragraphs have now one or several references. PHG 20:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influenza

Self-nomination. An article on the viral disease influenza. The article aims to be both comprehensive and approachable and contains 36 kB of text. This article is currently GA and has recently been peer-reviewed (Link) Thank you. TimVickers 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak Support: Support: Quite good. However, I sense that the tone is ambiguous at times. For example, "Vaccination against influenza with a flu vaccine is possible and in many cases recommended." In what cases would the vaccine not be recommended? Is vaccination possible (as in theoretical), or does it actually exist? The second question is answered later, but such ambiguousness hurts the article a bit.

Also, it might be good to integrate content from tributary articles into the main one. Don't just mention something; describe it in, say, a sentence or so. For example, the article mentions Pathogenesis in the "Research" section. I happen to know what pathogenesis is, and how it might affect flu treatment, but I would suggest explaining how pathogenesis is important in Influenza Research for those who don't.

On the positive side, if I were doing a report on the Influenza, this article seems authoritative and a spring board towards other useful sources. I would suggest improvement, however. I remain a "Weak Support," which may either become "Strong Support" or "Oppose" as the week continues. --Gracenotes ^T § 02:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC). Done. Influenza has never looked so good! ... 19:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro to Vaccine section now reworded. 'Research' section also reworded and expanded to give some concrete examples. TimVickers 02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. This is my opportunity to point out that {{main}} is used incorrectly throughout this article, as in many others on Wikipedia. Can we either clarify the usage information on the template to permit its use in what seems to have become convention, or change the template used to, e.g. {{details}}? Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 07:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Changed usage of {{Main}} to {{Further}}, after reading Wikipedia:Guide to layout. This does seem a bit of a jumble of usage in Wikipedia, as there seems to be the {{main}}, {{further}}, {{see also}} and {{details}} all used for exactly the same job. However, this isn't the place to discuss general issues. TimVickers 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems very good to me.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one comment though: I don't really like the 'the CDC says' thing used a few times. There could just be a reference instead. --WS 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of these have been removed already, I have cut another from the vaccine section. TimVickers 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And what is known about the properties and structure of type B and C viruses? There is only information about type A in that section. --WS 17:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Added note that other strains are similar in structure to type A. TimVickers 17:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Seems very good and comprehensive. PHG 18:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good structure, with many details and information. Hello32020 21:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Tim, you're like an FA machine :) A few comments:

• Do you know the magnification of the image in the infobox? (Also, is it my imagination or do the HK viruses in the second image have tails?)

Rod-like forms are pretty common, so I suppose they MIGHT have tails. magnification added.

So there is a rod-shaped form of the virus (or a rod-shaped assembly)? Is that what the long rods in the H5N1 image are? Maybe there should be a mention of that in the structure section... I would've guessed influenza viruses were always spherical. Opabinia regalis 00:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of rods added to intro of structure section. Thanks. TimVickers 01:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• The nomenclature image appears (for me, at least) before hemagglutinin and neuraminidase have been introduced in the text.

Added note to textbox below image referring reader to discussion below.

• The tag for Image:Flu_und_legende_color_c.jpg is out-of-date.

Replaced with new image.

• "H7N7 has unusual zoonotic potential" - this statement also appears in the H7N7 article, but in neither case is the reason described. I guess this is really a criticism of the H7N7 article, but it would still be nice to have an explanation, or a citation to a place where it could be found.

Ref added.

• Similarly, why the lower mutation rate for B?

Good question, I don't think anybody knows! The ref for this observation to a paper published in April of this year, so give them time.

• The description of the infection mechanism really should explicitly mention the fusion peptide. It doesn't need great detail, but without this description readers might wonder why a cell would "voluntarily" import a virus.

Added.

• The graph of H5N1 cases is a bit confusing - why include the regression line if it's only going to project another month into the future?

I think it is more to smooth the data than make a prediction.

• "Here, the novel influenza spreads uncontrollably, causing a pandemic." - makes it sound like a pandemic is inevitable every time reassortment occurs.

Good catch, reworded.

• "children of less than 59 months" - kind of awkward wording. (A bit off topic, but why would they choose 59 months? Weird number.)

Reworded, yes a strange number. TimVickers 05:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sure the CDC knows what they're doing with the H5N1 micrograph, but it seems odd to me. If it's colorized so that viruses appear gold, what's going on with those long rods?

Overall, great job (again)! Opabinia regalis 04:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 25

Comments before support. Sorry to come late to this — just a few questions/comments before I support:

• Further reading is massive: is all of that really seminal, important and necessary, or has it acquired some spam/advertising/cruft? If you say it's necessary, I'll take your word for it :-)

Removd some that were duplicated in the reference list.

• See also is a bit unwieldy; that's not an objection, but would you consider developing a template? I can help if you're interested (see Template:Topics related to Tourette syndrome).

The list of serotypes is duplicated in the template at the bottom of the page. Removed.

• I'm wondering why History is at the top of the article, vis-a-vis WP:MEDMOS. I know following MedMos doesn't work for all articles, but wonder still why History is needed at the top of the article: I'm disposed to the view that History at the bottom works better for encyclopedic articles.

History is pretty important here because of the episodic nature of pandemics and the poor public awareness of the 1918 pandemic. More so than for other diseases that have constant levels of infection.

• In the chart in Epidemiology, can you convert the external jump to a footnoted reference? The problem with the reference being an external jump is that future editors have no information for tracking down the reference should the link go dead; converting it to a bibliographic ref helps avoid that potential future problem.

Converted to ref.

• I see some redundancy and questions (I'm not sure on some of this) that can be addressed via copyedit — things like:
  • Influenza, commonly known as the flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals and is caused by an RNA virus of the family Orthomyxoviridae (the influenza viruses).
  • In more serious cases, influenza causes pneumonia, and this (which) can be fatal, particularly in young children and the elderly.
  • Commas goofed up here? This huge death toll was caused by an extremely high infection rate, of up to 50% and the extreme severity of the symptoms.
  • The severity killed? Not sure that works, not sure how to fix it ... The unusual severity of the disease killed 2.5 % of those infected,
  • Influenza capitalized here, but not other places? Check through entire article for consistency? This is unusual since Influenza is normally most deadly to the very young (under age 2) and the very old (over age 70).
  • Take care with consistency in UK or US English (not sure if there are consistency problems, but just came across this and wanted to make sure you had checked): Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who showed that the virus lost virulence when it was cultured in fertilised hen's eggs ...
  • Not sure on capitalization: sometimes orthomyxoviridae is capped, sometimes not ? Similar for other viruses (see for example section Types of influenza virus).
  • This statement can become outdated (needs some time reference?): H5N1 is the current pandemic threat.
  • They can ? Influenza C viruses are known to infect humans and pigs. It can ...
  • Emergence ? Also, avoid "discussed below" as some future editor may come along, long after we're all gone, and change the order of sections. This is important in the emergance of pandemics, and is discussed below.
  • ugh ... According to the on-line version of the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy: ... they are so often wrong— can this possibly be sourced to something more reliable? Perhaps this is a personal dislike, since they are so dramatically and emphatically wrong on TS, and have made no attempts to correct their misinformation over many years.
  • Somewhere above says "sneeze", this says coughing, list below this mentions both, inconsistency in text should be worked out: The virus attacks the respiratory tract, is transmitted from person to person by saliva droplets expelled by coughing,
  • Not sure about hyphenation here? Seasonal changes in contact rates from school-terms,
  • Avoid "above" or "below" in case a future editor changes section order: Every ten to twenty years a pandemic occurs, which infects a large proportion of the world's population, and can kill tens of millions of people (see history section above).
  • I'm not sure on hyphenation? The most dangerous side-effect
  • Are these generics - should they be capitalized ? Antiviral drugs such as Oseltamivir (trade name Tamiflu) and Zanamivir are

Sandy (Talk) 17:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. Corrections made. TimVickers 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, that was fast, you are an FA machine! Sandy (Talk)

• Comment

H5N1 is the current pandemic threat.

Just to check that you don't want to replace "current" with something more precise and lasting. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed three occurances of this phrase, replaced with "2006-7 flu season" TimVickers 19:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. Only one comment, there's an image superimposing a table in the "History" section. Nat91 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What's your browser and screen resolution? I'll need to reproduce the problem to fix it! TimVickers 20:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox, 800x600. Nat91 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It's optimised for 1024x768, but I just tried your settings and had no problem on my monitor. Did the new nomenclature image fix the problem for you? TimVickers 04:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think so. I don't see the problem anymore. Nat91 20:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article! Broad coverage of relevant topics (without being too long or technical); should be intelligible to lay-people. I don't like "TimVickers, FA Machine" as a title — how about "Mr. FAntastic"? ;) Willow 22:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to see a section about economic impact of influenza, past and present.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added such a section using content from Social impact of H5N1. Probably should be further edited ... WAS 4.250 21:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The "Economic impact" section refers to the impact of animal (avian) influenza for most of its duration. Shouldn't the "Infection in other animals" come before the recently addended section upon the economy? I've changed the order, and if you object, post something here and revert it. Thanks. --Gracenotes ^T § 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I've done formatting and some editing in this section. A whole new section in just 4 hours! TimVickers 22:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job, if it can be expanded to past influenza's impact it would be quite comprehensive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is amazingly little published research on this area, however I found one paper and have added some discussion of the economic impact of the 1918 pandemic. TimVickers 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job - I support now.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oct 28

• Support, This is a great article and seems to meet all the criteria. I do have a few small things I question.
  • There are a lot of long sentences. These sentences tend to use parentheses rather heavily. And in other places parentheses are used where I would generally put a piped link. I wonder if these things should be handled differently, but I am not sure they are wrong.

Replaced parentases in first paragraph of intro with piped links, thank you, a great improvement. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Long The most common human vaccine is the trivalent flu vaccine, which contains purified and inactivated material from whatever three flu strains are judged the most useful to put in a vaccine for that flu season (typically, two types of influenza A viruses and one influenza B virus).

Cut into two sentences and re-ordered. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Long Since it first killed humans in Asia the 1990s and became epizootic (epidemic in nonhumans) and panzootic (affecting animals of many species, over a wide area) a deadly avian strain of H5N1, called HPAI A(H5N1) for "highly pathogenic avian influenza virus of type A of subtype H5N1", has posed the greatest influenza pandemic threat.

Cut central clause, since I don't think H5N1 avian influenza is epidemic in humans. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • On the piped link; would In people, common symptoms of influenza are fever, sore throat (pharyngitis), muscle pains (myalgia) be better handled like In people, common symptoms of influenza are fever, sore throat, muscle pains; I don't know.
  • Terminology on avian flu is not consistant. It fully introduced twice. It is called "avian influenza", "HPAI A(H5N1)", "H5N1", "H5N1 avian flu" and "avian flu H5N1" at various points. In "Infection in other animals" I get the impression the above terms are not interchangable, but they seem to be used interchangably throughout the rest of the article.

Standardised either on "Avian influenza" when talking about influenza in birds in general, or H5N1 avian influenza. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• • I think the article needs to be rechecked that linked terms are linked at their first use and only their first use. - User talk:BirgitteSB

I disagree that we should only link technical terms once, since some readers may not read the entire article (for example skipping the technical section on Viral structure and going straight to Treatment and Vaccination). However, I've been through and removed some duplicate links in the same section. TimVickers 01:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to fix some of these things but thought better of it, as I'm better at gathering data than word-smithing. I agree with the piped link comment. The two long sentences are my fault - I expect they'll be fixed by Monday by someone on a wikibreak. I disagree totally with only linking terms when they first appear - more than once per paragraph is too much and once per section is generally best. See avian flu and H5N1 for their meanings - they are definitely not interchangable. For example LPAI A(H5N1) exists in North America; nonavian H5N1 is theoretically possible but does not yet exist; A(H5N1)=H5N1; H5N1 is the virus while H5N1 flu is the disease; flu=influenza; avian=bird; all subtypes of Influenzavirus A have strains that are endemic in birds and thus are "avian flu viruses" but the stains are viruses not flus and the subtypes are not "avian flu viruses" because some stains of those subtypes are not endemic in birds but instead are endemic in other animals (humans, horses, dogs, ...). WAS 4.250 07:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, avian flu is avian. Only birds can catch it, lest there be the necessary mutations for it to be successful in human hosts. The HxNy notation describes the two main aspects of the serotype, i.e. the glycoproteins (iirc) that the immune system latches on to. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"Only birds can catch it" is incorrect. Humans have caught and died from the current Asian-lineage HPAI A(H5N1) which is an avian flu virus - the "A" in HPAI stands for "avian" (but the "A" in A(H5N1) stands for "Influenzavirus A" or type A or species A or Influenza A virus).

Genetic factors in distinguishing between "human flu viruses" and "avian flu viruses" include:

PB2: (RNA polymerase): Amino acid (or residue) position 627 in the PB2 protein encoded by the PB2 RNA gene. Until H5N1, all known avian influenza viruses had a Glu at position 627, while all human influenza viruses had a lysine.

HA: (hemagglutinin): Avian influenza HA bind alpha 2-3 sialic acid receptors while human influenza HA bind alpha 2-6 sialic acid receptors. Swine influenza viruses have the ability to bind both types of sialic acid receptors.

The HA changes have not yet occured in any sequenced H5N1 virus - even ones from humans that died from it and the PB2 changes don't stop it from being a flu virus endemic in birds (the definition of "avian flu virus").

Further, pandemic flu viruses have some avian flu virus genes and usually some human flu virus genes. Both the H2N2 and H3N2 pandemic strains contained genes from avian influenza viruses. The new subtypes arose in pigs coinfected with avian and human viruses and were soon transferred to humans. Swine were considered the original "intermediate host" for influenza, because they supported reassortment of divergent subtypes. However, other hosts appear capable of similar coinfection (e.g., many poultry species), and direct transmission of avian viruses to humans is possible. H1N1 may have been transmitted directly from birds to humans (Belshe 2005). ^[1] Recent research of Taubenberger et al has suggested that the 1918 virus, like H5N1, could have arisen directly from an avian influenza virus. WAS 4.250 14:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Perhaps, instead of having all of the images in the article at the top right corner of sections, there could be a bit of variation. Maybe the image code could be implemented after the first paragraph of a section. Perhaps the image could be left of the text. That sort of thing. Gracenotes ^T § 14:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, done for two images. TimVickers 15:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gilberto Silva

A large group of biography and football editors have thoroughly reviewed this article over the last few months, and I think it has reached a stage where it meets the standard required of featured articles. The main work has been in expanding the biography career. After that, a fair amount of work went into improving the grammar and removing all of my accidentally placed POV claims.

The article draws help from the only other featured soccer player article, Denis Law. The lead section includes Gilberto's career highlights and his roots in Brazil, and also has a length in-check with the size of the article as a whole. The biography has a comprehensive childhood section, leading into two neat sections about how his career began and then progressed thereafter. I feel that the prose creates a good feeling of 'story' as the article progresses into the modern day, sticking to the major points in his career. The whole biography is referenced very thoroughly. The images all CC licensed, and all have fitting captions.

I hereby self-nominate the Gilberto Silva article. Thanks. -GilbertoSilvaFan 01:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• I see no serious problems. Looks like a very good sports biography article, and kudos on the images, I know how hard it is to get free images of athletes.

Thanks for your kind words - and thanks for making some changes to it! The sentences which you changed now flow much better.

• Per WP:MOS#Time "Avoid words or phrases like currently, recently, last year, soon, modern, and new." so the section "Recent career" needs to be renamed, I just can't think of what to.

Good spot. We had some problems with that header before. I'll change it to "senior career" for now. If you think of something more fitting, feel free to put it.

• Article Mentions the game he debuted in with Arsenol, but not the date. This might be a good idea to include.

Good idea. Done.

• "At first he struggled to adapt to life in London", "his off-field problems continued" - a bit confusing. Were his problems just limited to not getting full payment on his contract? Language is a bit vague, especially "he struggled to adapt to life in London", could just use a bit of clearer explanation.

I've done two things to fix this. I've written why he struggled to adapt to life in London (it was because of the change from a small town to a bit city). I've also changed 'off field problems' to 'legal problems'. I hope that makes the distinction between the two 'problems'.

• "Gilberto sustained a serious injury, fracturing his back" could use just a bit more detail on how he was injured

I've expanded the sentence to say how the injury started as a pain, and turned out to be a fracture.

• "His absence as a first team regular could be explained by his lack of games, and thus match fitness, for Arsenal during the season leading up to the tournament." So he didn't play a lot of games because he wasn't in good shape because didn't play in a lot games? Sounds like circular logic. In addition to being confusing, this claim is uncited. nevermind, I misread, --W.marsh 02:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Seems okay to me. --W.marsh 00:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, I've seen this article grow over time, and have re-assessed it a couple of times thanks to a great job by GilbertoSilvaFan. This article definitely is FA-class. – Elisson • T • C • 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and well-citated.--Yannismarou 10:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A great level of detail and due diligence has gone into this article. GilbertoSilvaFan's attitude towards this has to be commended too.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  13:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: → only for the copyvio images problems. Support
  • Image:Gilberto_Silva_Against_Villa.jpg has a possible copyvio. The image is tagged with CC-BY-SA license, but it is released under "All rights reserved" license. I've put the possible copyvio tag there.

    This image issue is being handled outside of this page.

    but, it does not mean that you can include copyvio images in this article. Not for FAC. Please read WP:WIAFA, criterion 3. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    I understand - I didn't mean that the copyright problems won't be an issue - I just said "this is being sorted elsewhere", because we were discussing it on our talk pages. Ok, about the image. I really am a bit stuck. What is the best way to prove that the image has been authorised by the photographer for use on Wikipedia? The author of this image and the one below have both released the image under the creative commons license; how do I prove this? Is there a way? Shall I copy and paste the emails which grant permission? Thanks for your advice.

    Well, you can remove the image from the article first and let the copyright issue be solved in the image "space". If you insist to put the image in the article during FAC, then there is no way this article will be granted an FA status. — Indon (reply) — 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    Done. I've replaced the images with ones I took myself. I hope this helps to clear the way for the article to pass FAC. Thanks for all your messages in this nomination, Indon; much appreciated. GilbertoSilvaFan 10:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

  • The source of Image:Gilberto_Silva_Streetleague.jpg image cannot be verified. The link goes to an empty page.

    So is this one.

    so is this one (criterion 3, WP:WIAFA). — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    See above. Image has been switched.

  • There is no source in the statistics, performance and list of honours.

    Statistics and honours have been sourced. Do the performances/goals list need to be sourced? I can add a soccerbase link for each one if needed, I'm not sure if it would be too messy though... Please let me know.

    Yes, the whole data and statistics should have reliable sources. It is not enough to say Statistics correct as of October 14, 2006,.... Says who? If you want to compare, then read the bottom of the table in Dean Smith article, that I'd just fixed it. However, I see inline citations have been put at the top of the table header. That's okay for me. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Cool - I'll source all the individual performances and goals. I'll create a little row below the table like you have done for dean smith. Edit: I decided to source each game individually since Soccerbase doesn't let you link to a range of data.

  • I found inexact words to state the time, that should be avoided in WP, because all facts should be accurate whenever an article is read, either now or 15 years later. Here are the words:
    • "currently" in the lead section,

      Changed. :-)

    • present tense of this statement: "He plays for Arsenal as a defensive midfielder." in the lead section,

      Changed wording.

    • "by today's rates." (when is today?),

      Poulsen changed this - thanks Poulsen!

  • Copyediting is still needed, especially for putting commas for better reading. For examples:

    Poulsen has changed all these comma issues too - thanks to Indon too for spotting them.

    • "When not playing football Gilberto's father taught him furniture making skills that he would come to use in the following years." → needs a comma to separate sub-sentences.
    • "In 1991 Gilberto's father retired leaving the fifteen year old to provide financially for his whole family, a task made more difficult by his mother's ill-health." → needs a comma and I found many of this similar sentence, that starts with time.
    • "Because of the low wage at América Mineiro he was forced to quit football to take various jobs as a labourer, a carpenter and a worker in a sweet factory." → needs a comma
    • "During Gilberto's third season at América Mineiro (their second season in Série A)..." → please choose one, third or second season and also a comma is needed after the time clause.
    • "In 2000, aged 24, he joined rival club Atlético Mineiro where in his first season for the club he fractured his right tibia and, as a result, missed a number of games." → chop this long sentence.
    • "He made his international debut against Chile on 7 October as a substitute, and on 7 November he made his full international debut against Bolivia."→ redundant international debut and what's the meaning of full and without-a-full international debut?
    • "Upon signing Gilberto Arsené Wenger said, ...." → now this clearly needs a comma. Otherwise one would think of a person, named Gilberto Arsene Wenger. :-)
    • ... and many more.
  • This following part of a paragraph:

In 2002 he was a surprise inclusion in the Brazil squad for the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Korea/Japan. He was expected to play a bit part in the tournament. However, defensive midfielder Emerson was injured in training just before the first World Cup game. In light of the setback, coach Scolari called upon Gilberto to fill the gap which Emerson left. Gilberto ended up playing in every minute of every match of the tournament, which Brazil went on to win.

is unsourced, and has an unencyclopaedic - with a strong POV writing - in the last sentence.

Poulsen sourced the sentence.

• • "Football pundits labelled Gilberto as one of the major factors of Brazil's success in Japan." --> needs a source for this fact.

    While this sentence was kind of sourced by the 'piano carrying' quote, I deleted it anyway.

  • In the last paragraph of the Early career sub-section, I found it confusing to understand about Ronaldo and Rivaldo role there. There's some information missing.

    How exactly should I change it? That quote is complete, and I think it's a fairly common phrase. If you carry a piano to somebody elses tune, you do the hard work of carrying a huge piano to a concert, while the pianist (in this case rivaldo/ronaldinho) gets credit for the lovely tunes which it plays. Could you elaborate on this point? Thanks.

    To be honest, I still don't understand. Perhaps my English is a bit lacking to relate between piano and football. It is just the assertion of the quote makes it hard to understand. — Indon (reply) — 18:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

    Ok, it's just a little analogy. The author in Veja Magazine used a 'poetic' way of explaining how Gilberto did the 'dirty work' while the attacking players got the credit. I think it's a good way of explaining it.

  • A smalll typo: "Being used to life in small Brazilian towns, ...". Shouldn't it be "to live"?

    Good spot; I've changed this to be more clear.

— Indon (reply) — 02:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support: The images, as descriped by Indon, should be sorted out. Other than that, I vote support. Poulsen 09:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Footballers usually have very small articles, this one is a shining beacon of hope to us all. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 10:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I like this article Kingjamie 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support An excellent article, definitely FA standard. Oldelpaso 20:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Tenaru

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for Featured Article consideration. Self-nomination. Cla68 10:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article in every respect. Kirill Lokshin 12:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Date links...I believe full m/d/y dates should be linked, but not m/d only links. Rlevse 16:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  Nope, any link containing both a month and a day is subject to the user date preferences, and needs to be linked (e.g. 2 June versus June 2). Kirill Lokshin 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak object — Overall it's pretty good, with only a few issues that I think need to be addressed. Neutral because of the image quality. Support
  • The first paragraph should clarify that this battle took place on the island of Guadalcanal.
    • Done.
  • The image at the top has some distracting scanning artifacts. Can a better-quality image be provided?
    • Unfortunately, I can't fix this one at this time. I've searched all over the place and can't find a better copy.
      • There's a slightly better copy on a fortunecity site.[13] Is there not another image that could be used? — RJH (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I just uploaded a much clearer image. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What is an "Element" in this context? Is that a battalion-strength battle group?
    • "Element" was the word used in Japanese communications at that time to refer to this detachment from Ichiki's regiment. The use of the word "element" was probably due to the fact that the size of the unit was larger than a battalion, but smaller than a regiment. I've added some clarification to the text.
  • The info box lists 777 Japanese killed; the introduction: 900-128=772 killed. Which is correct? I know it's a minor difference, but it's good to be consistent.
    • I was rounding for aesthetic purposes in the intro, I've now changed it to read 917. I know that 917-15 (captured)-128 (killed) doesn't equal 777 but that's what the source states are the numbers. The source admits that the numbers don't completely add up but it's the best that can be done with the surviving primary source available.
  • The map is a little difficult to decipher, being in black and white and apparently showing both U.S. and Japanese attacks (even though the legend states the arrows shows the "axis of Japanese attacks".)
    • I changed the map to a color one.
  • In the prelude it states that landing took place "without unloading all of the heavy equipment," but later the divisional artillery is used in support. Can the unloading situation be clarified? Was the heavy equipment brought in later?
    • I clarified that paragraph to state that the divisional artillery was landed. It was among the only heavy equipment landed.
  • The "Aftermath" section states that this was a "large land battle", but apparently it was only a battalion-strength attack. Large, to me, usually means a corps or army-level battle.
    • Ok. I removed the word "large."

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I addressed each of your comments above. Cla68 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope I've resolved your last concern. Cla68 12:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Magnifique. Thanks again. — RJH (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. "That night, as the transports unloaded, the Allied warships screening the transports were surprised and defeated by a Japanese warship force of seven cruisers and one destroyer, commanded by Japanese Vice Admiral Gunichi Mikawa. Three U.S. and one Australian cruisers were sunk and one other U.S. cruiser and two destroyers were damaged in the Battle of Savo Island. Turner withdrew all remaining Allied naval forces by the evening of August 9 without unloading all of the heavy equipment, provisions, and troops from the transports, although most of the divisional artillery was landed." I know Cla68 is always very carefully citating his articles. I was thus wondering why are these facts uncitated (a minor detail in a great article, but I sometimes stick on details!).--Yannismarou 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I added a citation for that section. Cla68 00:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Support.--Yannismarou 12:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Good article! Kyriakos 03:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice article. Raymond Palmer 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. You need a little work with references. In particular, as you have only one referenced work by Frank, you should reference to it with "Frank, p. 153", not "Frank, Guadalcanal, p. 153". If you refer several times to the same page of the same reference, do not create several notes, but a single one; e.g., the casualities references are actually the same.--Panarjedde 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platypus

This was made a featured article so long ago that I can't find any record of why it was promoted. Anyway, it was demoted in July this year (See Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Platypus for its complete FA history). Over the past couple of months I've completely rewritten it - I think it is back up to FA standard now. Yomangani^talk 10:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. very nice. Rlevse 12:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Informative, well-referenced, well-illustrated, well-written... overall everything a FA should be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ONUnicorn (talk • contribs) .
• Comment: The image map of the platypus distribution has no information in it, either as caption or in the image description. What does the color mean? I can guess, but since there are 2 different intensities of purple color, does it mean that platypuses are distributed throughout the continent? And also, to avoid WP:OR issue and for the accuracy of the image, there must be a source of this distribution map, isn't it? — Indon (reply) — 14:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I've added an explanation to the map. The OR concern is addressed by the referenced range details in the article - I don't think it is necessary to cite the map key as well. Yomangani^talk 15:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but which reference that was used as the source of the distribution image? — Indon (reply) — 15:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a reference with a map that duplicates the info shown. Yomangani^talk 15:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually it should be given in the image description, because then the image can be used in any articles without concerning its accuracy. So, here is my support for such a high-quality article. — Indon (reply) — 15:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let editors know, that I've been bold to edit the image description in its Commons page. — Indon (reply) — 15:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article. Only two minor comments I wish to add.
  • Can a picture of a platypus egg be obtained? It would be very interesting since it is one of the few mammals that lay eggs.
    • I've only been able to find one decent photo - I emailed the owner for permission to use it but haven't heard back yet. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I've added an external link to the picture in the meantime. Yomangani^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • One sentences which appear akward to me: The platypus occupies much the same general distribution as it did prior to European settlement of Australia, except for its loss from the state of South Australia. Much the same general distribution is my concern. Joelito (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I've slightly reworded that now. Yomangani^talk 16:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Well, that explains the difference between the German and English maps. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent job. Definitely meets the FA criteria. Jay32183 17:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Support Very comprehensive and well-cited. Some comments:
  • Keep dashes separating clauses in sentences consistent; I spotted "-", "–", and "—" all used.
  • Two red links: "interclavicle" and "defensin-like proteins".

Overall, good job. -Gzkn 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed [[defensin-like proteins]] to [[defensin]]-like [[protein]]s. There's really not much I can do about the interclavicle link: an interclavicle exists in certain animals, so there's no use not having an article about it (not double negative because "not having" refers to nonexistence and "no use" refers the futility thereof; not entirely canceling each other out), but I wouldn't know enough to start an article about it. I also eliminated dash variation by removing the dashes (where they served as conjunctions) and finding a more appropriate way to logically connect two independent clauses. See here On that note, I

Support: Nice article. It's good, it's factual, and the popular culture section is intelligible prose, not just a list. Well done. Gracenotes ^T § 02:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there is enough information for both interclavicle and defensin-like protein for them to have their own article, which is why they are linked even though those articles don't yet exist (both are on my redlink list to be filled sometime soon). Yomangani^talk 09:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I am disclosing I did a bit of editing on it as well but I reckon it satisfies all criteria - neutral, comprehensive, succinct and readable. Cas Liber 06:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Very good. Wiki-newbie 09:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support and a congratulatory salute for saving yet another neglected or demoted featured article. Sandy (Talk) 14:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. Nat91 18:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice!--Yannismarou 20:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well writen, interesting, well cited, and has good pictures. Well done. Darthgriz98 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Weird Al" Yankovic

Self-nomination. Drastic improvements in coverage, references, layout and consistency since I started seriously working on the article, and if I may say so myself, I feel it meets all the requirements. It should be stable now that I've stopped re-wording the biography section, which I felt needed work before FA nomination. ~ Gromreaper 14:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object for now You note in your nomination itself that the article is instable. You've made so many changes in the past 36 hours that it fails WP:FA? right off the bat. However, I love Weird Al, and the article looks great, so if you just let the article lie for a couple of weeks, I'd possibly (if not probably) support. -- Kicking222 16:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

"vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply." from WP:FA?. All my edits were the subject of suggestions on the article's talk page and does not reflect instability, which refers to edit wars and the like. ~ Gromreaper 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I missed the talk page suggestions. My bad. Opposition stricken. -- Kicking222 12:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral until I have a chance to really read it, but leaning toward support. Oppose as long as fair-use cover art is used in the discography table, which is contrary to Wikiproject Music's MUSTARD guidelines (see WP:MUSTARD#Images and notation and WP:MUSTARD#Discographies). Additionally, the other images used in the article lack sources and fair use rationales; and, regarding the image in the infobox, photos of living people are considered "easily replaceable fair use" and there's currently a debate over whether they're suitable for use in Wikipedia. That's just the images, though — I haven't gotten a chance to read it thoroughly yet, but the text looks good at first blush. --keepsleeping slack

off! 19:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Is that adequate? I've added fair use for the DVD covers. I'm not good at copyright in any way, and I don't know what constitutes a "free" image. Any help? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Also, I've sort of been using the Elliott Smith featured article as a guideline for this, and the image rationale for his infobox seems to be the same kind of justification as the Weird Al infobox. ~ Gromreaper 03:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Elliott Smith, unfortunately being dead, isn't easily photographable. Yankovic, thankfully being alive, is :) I've left some suggestions on your talk page about replacing the fair-use image with a free one (and even found one that would work). --keepsleeping slack off! 13:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  Image replaced. --keepsleeping slack off! 13:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

  I would suggest merging the sections "Awards and album certification" and "Discography", like current Featured Article Marilyn Manson (band), which would eliminate both the MUSTARD problems and the redundancy of having all the album titles listed twice. --keepsleeping slack off! 19:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've removed the images and merged and culled the section. Wasn't sure whether to include the Canadian certification with the US, so I kept it separate for now. Any other suggestions? ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The instability thing means that there are no edit wars or POV issues in progress or potentially brewing. I've passed three FAs with over a hundred edits made the day of nomination, so unless you're making some caustic assertions in the biography section, it should be okay. --Zeality 21:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for that clear-up...Kicking222 had me worried. ~ Gromreaper 02:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• ObjectMild support Support For now, at least. I'm a big fan of Weird Al though, so I'd love to see this brought up to FA status. Some comments:
  • Unsourced statements:
    • -Yankovic commented, "Millions of girls actually found me hot for the first time!"
      • Replaced with another sourced statement ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Furthermore, most novelty artists are often one hit wonders, but Yankovic's continued success (including a top 10 single and album in 2006) has enabled him to escape the "one hit wonder" stigma often associated with novelty music.
      • Now sourced ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Kurt Cobain called Yankovic an American "rock genius" in his private journals.
      • Couldn't find a source, so removed for now. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • -Their mission is to "solicit, collect, and raise the necessary money, and to compile the information needed for the application to nominate 'Weird Al' Yankovic for a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame." and most of that section.
      • More sources added...seems the weirdalstar.com link was removed a while ago. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair, he is often seen with a goatee; most notably, on the album art for the 2006 release, Straight Outta Lynwood. - Second clause is not an independent clause, so that semicolon is out of place.
    • Re-worded to Although his "official" look does not feature facial hair he is often seen with a goatee, including on the cover for 2006's Straight Outta Lynwood. I hope that's what you wanted addressed... ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yankovic is best known for his song parodies... - Be careful when using the phrase "best known". Aim for more factual statements such as "While his song parodies have proven more popular according to the charts...".
    • Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yankovic's recurring jokes include the number 27 and the names Bob, Frank and Leroy Finkelstein. - Might want to give some example songs (in parens) in which these occur.
    • Done ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Does the misattribution issue on file-sharing sites really merit a spot in the intro? Seems kind of trivia-ish to me...
    • I figured since it has an entire section devoted to it, it should be mentioned in the intro. I was following WP:LEAD. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The first half of the "Songs" section ventures into a non-NPOV territory, at least to me, as it delves into analysis of his music. Not sure what WP's policy is towards analysis of music in articles though.
    • I'll work on this tonight. ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Done. ~ Gromreaper 06:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Analysis of a musical style is totally acceptable if not recommended. We could discuss where it should be placed (here or in a seperate section), but, in any case, it definitely adds to the article's comprehensiveness and quality. Under the term, of course, that it is balanced and NPOV. I think that it this case we don't have such problems and the analysis is well-done.--Yannismarou 07:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • My only comment about the "Songs" section is that the two first pars are unreferenced.--Yannismarou 07:41, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well in that case, I guess I'm reluctantly OK with the analysis (I've definitely seen far worse and for more biased analysis on Wikipedia). There are, however, only four sources in the entire section, although this is probably to be expected in analysis (another reason I tend to dislike analysis). Gzkn 07:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I've added some more references and re-worded the paragraph about the way his parodies are recorded. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Looks great. Changed to Support. Gzkn 09:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Ref number 41 no longer works.
    • You mean the E article about the star? Now fixed ~ Gromreaper 07:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Gzkn 06:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! Look forward to seeing how the "Songs" section turns out, as that and the unsourced stuff, which are now fixed, were my main objections. Gzkn 07:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Under the term that "Songs" will be properly citated, I support the article. But I underscore the conditionality of the support!--Yannismarou 20:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Full support from me.--Yannismarou 08:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Songs" now has some references and re-wording of the way his parodies are recorded to sound less amaturish and POV. ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support While the article is a bit unstable, I am in support of it becoming a featured article. And I am a Weird Al fan. Karrmann 21:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Question What's with that vandalism template? I couldn't easily find its placement in the history. Was the article really getting vandalized, and how far ago was this? --Zeality 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was vandalised many times by IP users after the White & Nerdy music video was released and the Atlantic Records page was vandalised and protected. Those that couldn't vandalise Atlantic Records went to Weird Al's page instead and added the text "YOU SUCK" (as in the video), oftentimes deleting entire sections. It was protected about a week ago, I think ~ Gromreaper 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Template was added on October 24th. Michael Greiner 21:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks great. Well done. -- Kicking222 12:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - Only thing stopping me from support is that you have failed to follow the idea of putting citations at the end of sentances. When moved I will change to support. Inform me on my talk page.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 12:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Issue addressed; all citations are now at the end of their sentence. ~ Gromreaper 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Changed to Support My only concern has been addressed--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 05:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - well done. Satisfies criteria - easy to read, comprehensive and comes across as impartial. Cas Liber 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article is well written, well cited, and interesting.HeBhagawan 01:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written, easy to follow, very accurate, and very comprehensive. --Elvis 21:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for FA consideration. Although not as long as some battle articles, I believe it includes all of the relevant information for an encyclopedic article on the event. Self-nomination with helpful polishing from other editors. Cla68 22:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I can get behind this. Short, but seems to contain all the information the other FAs on battles have, so I guess it's comphrehensive. There's just less to be written, is all. It's well referenced, detailed, well written, properly organized... yeah. I can support this. Fieari 02:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Its short it still meets all the criteria. Kyriakos 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Consecutive article, apparently passed the A-class nomination. Nice image set. --Brand спойт 11:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, all the issues raised in the peer review and A-Class review have been resolved. Another outstanding article from Cla68. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice good, compact, article that meets all of the criteria for featured article status. Hello32020 00:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work. Short and sweet. Well-linked as well. Gzkn 04:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support but please move External links out of References (unless they were really used as References, in which case they shouldn't be listed as External links). Sandy (Talk) 16:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

They were used as references. I've always divided up my references into "Books" and "External Links." Do you feel that the web references should be in a section with a different heading? Cla68 23:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, have a look at WP:LAYOUT. All references used should be listed under Notes/References; External links is a separate standard heading which is not normally used to describe Notes/References. Perhaps you could say Book References and Web References (or something along those lines), so as not to get tangled up in standard Wiki headings? Regards, Sandy (Talk) 15:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 23:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support — Overall a nice piece of work. To put things in perspective though, the background section could use an overview map that clearly shows the locations of Rabaul, Guadalcanal Island, and possibly the battle of Coral Sea. (But the map on the Guadalcanal campaign page is a little too large a scale, and, besides, it's hard to read. :) Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tourette syndrome

Myth and misinformation is the norm in most published literature about Tourette syndrome; I hope you will find this to be a well-referenced encyclopedic entry that helps clarify some of the common misconceptions about the condition. There is a very old peer review; the article is selected as one of the best at the medicine portal, conforms to the Manual of style for medical articles, has had several independent copy edits, and is extensively cited. The size is a respectable 66KB overall, with 37KB of prose. Self-nom, about 95% written by me, with lots of vandal patrolling by my Wikifriends (please help me watch for the expected coprolalia-related vandalism while it is here at FAC). Thanks in advance for your comments, Sandy (Talk) 20:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support : I've been watching this article and your work for a long long time. One of our best (if not the) scientific articles. Perfect job! NCurse _work 20:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support : Wow, finally it's in FAC. Have watched the article for a long time. Great job. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. Example of some of the best work on Wikipedia. -- Wikipedical 20:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Are all of the (R)s in the Management section really necessary? --198.185.18.207 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe the registered trademark on medication names (®) was first added by an editor from one of the pharmaceutical projects who reviewed the article months ago for me: if it's a problem, I can ask one of the drug guys if the registered trademark is required for copyright legal reasons. Sandy (Talk) 21:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I asked at WikiProject Drugs. In case no one answers, I've checked several generic drug entries, and the brand names seem to always have the trademark sign. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 21:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I received a speedy response from a helpful Fvasconcellos (talk • contribs), who suggested a means of removing the trademarks for better readability. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks. They were in the way. Cheers. --198.185.18.207 12:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • How about moving one of the images to the left? Shake things up a bit, ya know? --198.185.18.207 12:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will do that today, Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 13:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Done, I think images are all solved now. Sandy (Talk) 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: I've been watching how much careful work has gone into this article by a star editor to bring it up to an exemplary standard. --apers0n 21:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm with NCurse and Wikipedical, definitely one of the best medical articles on WP. No redlinks, perfect ref placement (little things that usually bother me), relevant "daughter pages" – excellent. Fvasconcellos 22:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per apers0n, I have also seen Sandy working hard on this article, and, in all honesty this article is quite brilliant. --Alex (Talk) 22:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautiful and intellectually satisfying throughout. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I should disclose that I did some copy-editing a while ago on this one. The nominator has a deep knowledge of this area, and it shows. Tony 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Perfectly pitched, comprehensive, interesting and even managed to teach me the difference between echolalia and palilalia on the way. Yomangani^talk 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellently written, well-balanced, and an enjoying read. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Comments Overall excellent but some suggestions.

• In the introduction, why is a number of schoolchildren sufferers only given for America, which gives no information on incidence. The percentage mentioned later in the article would be more widely-applicable.

• That is the only number (as opposed to prevalance est.) available anywhere in any literature I've seen, and I only found it in new reading this week: if estimates of school children in other countries (other than prevalance, already discussed) are available anywhere, I've never come across them. I wanted something to convey the idea of how "not rare" TS is; that's why I moved that number up. My thinking is that just including the prevalance in the lead wouldn't be "enticing" to the reader, as it wouldn't convey the magnitude of the number. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried a formulation that adds both. Also changed half million to 500,000 as numbers with lots of zeros look larger!

Perfect! Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• You might add an image of the structure of the most-frequently used medication.

• Nice suggestion, will do. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some of these refs contain several papers, was this intended?

• Yes, in cases where multiple (seminal or important) references were used to support one statement, I combined them into one ref tag (something I learned from the Daniel Boone nomination). I think I did that in 4 refs, rather than overburden the text with multiple tags.

• Refs 70 and 71 are duplicates and could be merged.

• Ack, thanks! I double-checked the book to make sure I hadn't made a typo, it is the same page, I'll combine. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Notes" contains the references, so what is the references section for? Is this part of further reading? TimVickers 04:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Notes are specific inline citations; references are a listing of the broader sources used in researching the overall topic - seminal papers quoted often, reviews, and books on the entire topic - per WP:MEDMOS. References are also used for specific inline cites, but as MEDMOS was explained to me, and as I read it, the overall (general) research materials used are listed in References, while inline citations are at Notes. Those are the important Research works; they can't be listed as Further reading, as they are used as a source. Thanks for the help: going to make your changes now. Sandy (Talk) 04:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. TimVickers 12:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Wow, comprehensive and well-written. Great work, Sandy! --Gzkn 09:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support' Etiology' could do with a link though. JMcC 10:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. I learnt a lot reading through it. CloudNine 10:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very nice indeed.--Yannismarou 12:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Outstanding. Rlevse 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support – This article depresses me whenever I look at it and compare it to my own humble efforts. Something to aspire to. I have a few relatively minor comments. The words etiology and modality are a bit erudite for the lead and should be wiki-linked, or reworded. The word "should" is used a few times in the Screening section in a way that appears prescriptive rather than descriptive. I'm not convinced that the recently added image of the Haloperidol molecule is relevant or beneficial. That most people with TS require no medication is repeated a little too often. I appreciate it is difficult not to repeat somewhat, especially across sections. However, it is mentioned twice in the Management section. The second paragraph of Prognosis covers the life-span fact twice. The "the sickest of the sick" is mentioned twice in the Research section. This last section relies too much on one source, which is also perhaps over quoted (making the text harder to read). Are there no specific examples of ongoing or recent research to mention? Colin Harkness°^Talk 13:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for all of that, Colin; I'll get on all that after I've had several cups of morning coffee. (The final source used in Research controversies is so seminal and comprehensive it's hard not to use it all -- it covers all current controversies, but I'll see what I can do there.) Sandy (Talk) 13:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Changes made, would appreciate a new set of eyes to have a look now at Research directions and controversies section. The Swerdlow paper is so comprehensive that there isn't much else to say, but I did add info from another source so as not to overly rely on one source. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 18:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question Haloperidol image in the Management section: question raised above as to its usefulness. Opinions? Sandy (Talk) 13:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, think it's relevant (the Arthur K. Shapiro article does state "a turning point in understanding of Tourette syndrome came...when Dr. Shapiro and his wife... treated a Tourette’s patient with haloperidol"), but as a "pharm guy" as Sandy put it I'm biased :) – Colin's concern (correct me if I'm wrong) may refer to the fact that lay readers may not associate a space-filling model of Haldol with Haldol (or may not recognize what it is). Perhaps linking to "space-filling model" or "molecular model" in the caption? Fvasconcellos 14:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pros and cons: I'm not happy having Haldol in there, since it really is a heavy-duty med, with major side effects, is used as a last resort in severe cases, and I don't want the article to appear to "encourage" its use. On the other hand, you are right that it was a turning point in the history. Maybe you can fix the caption? Another option I found, which I like better, is at Adderall: it's a very nice image, and it is important to convey that stimulants are underused in the treatment of TS because of old myths. But, I'm not sure about the licensing tag on that image? Anyone? Sandy (Talk) 14:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As an image that is very similar to the one that is already used (generic medicine bottle and capsules). I think the Haloperidol image could stay but needs recaptioning. "Haloperidol is used to treat severe cases of Tourette's" tells us neither whether Haloperidol alone is used in this case nor whether it is the only treatment for severe TS. Perhaps even explaining that this is a representation of the molecule might help. Yomangani^talk 14:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

(dedenting)I'd be happy to amend the caption. As for the Adderall pic, I see no major problem with its copyright status. If you look closely, you can see personal details on the prescription bottle have been blanked with White-Out – an indication it is indeed someone's prescription, rather than a commercial image (is this much of a stretch on my part?) Either way, I'll wait for more opinions to emerge, or Sandy's choice. Fvasconcellos 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Yes, because pharmacological treatment is really an issue for the minority, I had left all of that detail in the daughter article, Treatment of Tourette syndrome; now the need for an image may cause med details to come back to this article. Maybe Fvasconcellos can explain better what that image represents - then I can adjust the wording, and later add the adderall image to the Treatment daughter article. (The images in this article have proven to be a bigger problem than the text :-) Sandy (Talk) 14:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this? Fvasconcellos 14:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Space-filling representation of a haloperidol molecule. Haloperidol is an antipsychotic medication sometimes used to treat severe cases of Tourette's.

Perfect, if Yomangani agrees that addresses the textual questions about its use, which I hope not to expand on in this article, rather the Treatment article. Thanks again, Fvasconcellos. Sandy (Talk) 14:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, now. Yomangani^talk 15:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks, will ask FV to add. Sandy (Talk) 15:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Sandy (Talk) 15:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have caused so much of an issue with the multi-coloured sex-toy / space-filling jobbie. Yes, I think most lay people reading this article won't appreciate the subtleties that such a model no doubt informs the pharmacologically minded around here. Given the overall impression regarding medication, I think the one photo of the pills is quite enough for this section. Colin Harkness°^Talk 22:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support --WS 15:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All weblinks need the date they were last accessed, so that if they become dead they can be retrieved via the Wayback Machine on www.archive.org. LuciferMorgan 02:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Toss me a cluestick: I thought they all had them? (In fact, many of them are to the internet archive stable version.) Sandy (Talk) 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, ha, I did not have access dates on full-text links; now added. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though some techical jargon is a little difficult to follow. I noticed that "comorbid" is wikilinked quite a few times early on (twice in one paragraph) but not again in later sections. I wasn't sure what it referred to when reading the section on "Social impact". Gimmetrow 00:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support – I expected to be overwhelmed by medical jargon, but Sandy has made sure to explain the jargon in laymens' terms within the prose, which is very helpful. In response to the above post, I assumed that the repeated wiki-linking of the term comorbid was unintended and wiki-linked only the first instance of the term. I also noticed that the meaning of comorbid was not explained in the prose like other jargon. Overall, however, this article is very accessible and the quality of the prose is excellent; it seems like a reliable reference point. -- WGee 04:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on further feedback from Gimmetrow, I moved up and included a brief definition of comorbid, provided an additional link to epidemiology in the Research section, and corrected some redundancy in the Research section. Thanks! Sandy (Talk) 04:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion on an otherwise excellent article: either think of a better reason for retaining the picture of Mozart, or do away with it. If for example the article were to say The 1978 publication of a book by two eminent neurologists claiming that Mozart had Tourette's -- a claim largely based on a single source now thought to be fraudulent -- gave rise to the widespread belief that blah blah blah [NB this is entirely fictitious!], then Mozart would acquire a considerable (spurious) significance. But as it is, I can't help speculating that some previous editor at one point thought "Let's have a picture here. What can we use? Yes, Mozart! Let's stick in Mozart." -- Hoary 12:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The lack of good images on the topic has been an ongoing problem, and that does occur/has occurred. On the other hand, google Mozart Tourette— you get 88,000 hits. The rumor is SO widespread that addressing it head on in the article does have a rationale. Comments ? Sandy (Talk) 14:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I added a couple of sentences to the text: Hoary, the hypothetical scenario that you laid out above is very close to what did happen. See new text, thanks. Sandy (Talk) 14:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Much better now. NB I didn't suggest that Mozart shouldn't be mentioned. Now he's not merely mentioned; as you say, the fuss over him is briefly discussed. Good, and now the Mozart pic doesn't seem absurdly out of place. But sorry, to me it still seems out of place. But I could be alone in seeing it this way. (Anybody else care to comment?) Meanwhile, the article is excellent and richly deserves effayfication. -- Hoary 15:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks, Hoary; if others concur, I'll gladly remove the image, but as you can see, finding images for the article has been a problem. The Mozart editors (several months ago) concurred to largely exorcise the TS text from *their* article — they don't want *that* there :-) There is another Mozart-TS project in the works (can't remember if it's a book, documentary, or what) in addition to the widespread claims furthered by a UK documentary, the work of one individual with TS with little medical input, and my hunch is that it's a frequent query worthy of dealing with seriously on Wiki, and would like to hear from others on the new text and image issue. Sandy (Talk) 15:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article is 71kb long. Am I the only one who finds a problem with this? If I remember correctly, the criteria states that articles should be in summary style. Also, a tedious and exhaustive article cannot be considered "well written." Orane (talk • cont.) 06:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, a tedious and exhaustive article cannot be considered "well written." Respectfully disagree there. Well written prose has little to do with how long an article is. From reading summary style, it seems the article meets that criteria. Note that a good chunk of that 71kb is probably in the references. In any case, I'll let Sandy speak to the article's length. Gzkn 07:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • First of all we should count prose length and not article length, because counting article length we also count notes, external links etc. (which is not correct). Second, 71 Kb is more than fine, in any case, since some of the recently confirmed FAs were way above 80 kb or even 90 and 100 kb. Comprehensiveness is above length.--Yannismarou 10:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd certainly tend to agree that a tedious article isn't a good one. I'm also wary of exhaustiveness: comprehensiveness is a virtue, but comprehensiveness needn't and probably shouldn't imply exhaustiveness. Right then: How is this article tedious or [uncritically, tiresomely] exhaustive? -- Hoary 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sandy stated in the nom that the prose is only 37KB. Good referencing accounts for most of the rest. Yomangani^talk 11:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Decided not to oppose based on Yomangani's point. I would just like to address a couple points however.
    1. "Well written prose has little to do with length?"--Gzkn. Are you serious? An article that is well written is conscious of the reader. No one wants to sit down for an hour sifting through an article that has 10,000 words. Good, clean prose is succinct and precise. Long articles are wordy, unfocussed and are symptomic of poor structure and organization. If length was not an issue, it wouldn't be in the criteria in the first place.
    2. "Comprehensiveness is above length." Again, that is a misconception. There are 4 FA criteria, none of which are more important than the other. To be comprehensive is to touch on all important areas, but a good writer omitts information that contributes nothing to the purpose of his/her writing. In other words, if a writer realizes that his article is too long, he is probably including more than he should, which resluts in a sloppy article. Orane (talk • cont.) 15:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I disagree with you, but this is not the right place to open this discussion. The adequate length for each article depends. An article with 100 kb can still be comprehensive and not lengthy for its subject.--Yannismarou 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I guess my take on "well written prose" was just a little more general than yours, which is probably why we disagree. I was divorcing it from the concept of Wikipedia (novels can certainly feature "well written prose" no?). But that's neither here nor there. :) Gzkn 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the input, Orane. Extensively cited articles will have a large overall size, as citations count in the KB. We should avoid burdening the reader with too much prose, which is why prose size is calculated on most long FACs. When nominated, the article was 67 KB overall (not long by current FA standards), with 37KB prose. With the addition of two images and a few lines of text during FAC, the article is now at 71KB overall, with 40KB prose, still well within the norm for most FACs and the limits of readability. If you can point out any sections which you believe need to make better use of summary style, I will see what I can do. Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Bengal

Previous nomination

A state on eastern India. Capital Kolkata (previously Calcutta). Major works have been done on the article in last 2–3 months. Passed through a peer review and further edits by several wikipedians.

The article failed the previous nomination largely due to the factual inaccuracy in the map. That problem has now been solved. Other concerns raised in the first nomination have also been addressed. Please help this article to become featured. Thanks. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Support: The article definetely meets the criteria. What more can I say? - Tutmosis 17:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Support. I see no pages in the printed sources which are citated. This should be fixed.--Yannismarou 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply A major source has been "West Bengal Human Development Report 2004" published by Development and Planning Department, Government of West Bengal. This is a printed source, also available online. 6 more books/anthology have been used and cited. I shall try to cite more. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm ok with the number of the printed sources. I just want in these printed sources you already have to mention a specific page for each one. When you citate a book, it is not enough to mention it, you must also specify to which page of this book you refer. Is that clear now?--Yannismarou 19:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. I am trying to fix that ASAP. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Page numbers/ranges, as applicable, have now been included, except in the case of one particular book [Mukherji, S.J. (1984). College Botany Vol. III: (chapter on Phytogeography).]. Another user used this book for citation. I have requested the user to provide us with page numbers. Please see if I've overlooked something else. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I was the user that used this book for the citations while updating the Flora and Fauna section. The book was borrowed and I should have noted down the pages while writing it. Fortunately, I can get a hold of it again within a day or two and update the reference immediately after. I apologize for the lapse while entering the reference the first time. Thanks for pointing out this important issue. --Antorjal 18:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the reference with page numbers. I have also verified the information with the newest available edition of this textbook (2000) and changed the reference to reflect this. Thanks, all. --Antorjal 17:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Support as I did in the last nomination. Very good article, nice work. — Wackymacs 19:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support excellent work. Rama's arrow 19:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the pictures have alignment issues - many are clustered, especially due to the size of the Durga pic. Could you please left-align some of them and sort this out? I don't see why the Durga pic isn't enough for the "Demographics," and the same for the RBT in "Flora and fauna." Rama's arrow 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

ReplyThe Durga image has now been replaced with another Durga image. See if it fits in the resolution you are using. Hmm, the number of images is borderline, I mean may be considered to be excessive. IMO, RBT image is better to retain, rather the forest image can be deleted. However, in culture, trying to retain both images. Feel free to left-allign images, as I am a bit confused while left-alligning. It seems to block the reading speed sometimes! In fact, some editors like Nichalp (talk • contribs) makes it a point that images are right alligned, unless absolutely necessary to left allign them. Your help will be much appreciated. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask for the Durga and RBT to be replaced, just re-ordered. I hate cluttering, with sections thrown out of line - it just ruins the aesthetic value and cohesion. But I'll leave it to your discretion. Rama's arrow 16:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written  Doctor Bruno  22:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written article. -- P.K.Niyogi 23:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's a pleasure to encounter a geography article with such a clean table of contents—a reflection of a well-organized article! Sandy (Talk) 02:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support : Excellent article, and has improved a lot since the last nomination. --Ragib 02:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support : A well written article and has improved from last FAC. There is not any points not to be selected as FA.

Sorry I forgot to sign the last support. Amartyabag 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per lacking of unreferenced facts:
  • The whole Culture section is unsourced.... but there are still unsupported qualitative facts. I've put some tags in it.
  • The Media section is a bit akward and sounds ads. There is no source for facts with qualitative words: "popular newspapers", "smaller audiences", "widely popular", "major cellular phone operators", "available throughout West Bengal".
  • Also in the Sport section, there are a lot of "popular" words without any source to support them.
  • A strange citation #47. At the end it says: "Unlisted in this list is West Bengal University of Health Sciences". Why this word is asserted in the citation?

— Indon (reply) — 16:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Some citations have been incorporated in "Culture". More will be done soon. Most of the qualitative words have been changed/ given citation. However, it is not unusual to assert one or more sentence in a citation. There are many examples of this practice, even in FAs. In this particualr case, as the cited source does not include a new university, that new university has been seperately mentioned (that university has its own article in Wikipedia, with reference). Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is very strange and it is an unusual practice of citing source. Why? Why should it be asserted? If it is not in the reference, then why should the editors deliberately write at the end of the citation to give a message "hey, there is one missing fact in this citation!"? Is the source not reliable? Then why did you use it if it is unreliable? — Indon (reply) — 00:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Ok. The reference has been changed. Now the number of universities are supported by two citations. One citation is linked to the official site of West Bengal University of Health Sciences, while the other citation lists universities. Please see. --Dwaipayan (talk) 04:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Solved. but I have additional comments, see below. — Indon (reply) — 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Additional comments:
  • In the lead section, there is a sentence: "Known for its cultural heritage, West Bengal has been home to legendary poets, writers, artists and performers.", but I can't find this claimed "legendary" fact in the body.
  • I found inexact time information, as this article should be accurate whenever it is read, either now or 20 years later. Here are the words: "recent years" (found 2 in Media section), "at present" (found 2 in the Governments and politics section)
  • In the Demographics section:
    • This sentence: "At 904/km²,...". What does this number mean per squared kilometers? A number of people? a number of houses?
    • This sentence: "The sex ratio is 934 females per 1000 males while the literacy rate is 69.22%." is odd. Is there a contradictory relation between literacy rate with the sex ratio?
  • In this long list of universities: "The state has many higher education institutes of national importance including the Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, the first of its kind in India, the National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, the Asiatic Society, the Indian Statistical Institute and the Marine Engineering and Research Institute.", what does "the first of its kind point" to?
  • In the Sport section, I don't get it. Which one is the most popular? Football or cricket?
  • Please supply the source for the [citation is needed] tags that I've put there.

— Indon (reply) — 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Additional Comments Thanks for the excellent review. Following measures have been taken:

• "legendery" has been replaced with "notable". Names of poets, writers are there in the culture section.
• Inexact time information words has been removed/changed appropriately. Please see if some has been missed.
• 904 people. clarified.
• sex ration and literacy. copyedited.
• "the first of its kind" refers to Indian Institute of Management. Clarified.
• Football is most popular. Cricket is also popular. Tried to clarify. Is it ok now?
• citation needed tags - managed. Please see. Thanks a lot. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Possible copyvio image

I was just going to add this comment from the last additional comments above, but had to run for other thing. The image Image:Victoria_memorial_water.jpg used in this article has a possibility of copyvio. The link to its source in Flickr said that the image is released under "(c) All rights reserved", meaning that the photographer did not irrevocably released all rights as it is said in the license tag. The author's permission (written in the image summary) links to a talk page here, but it is unsigned; thus it cannot be verified whether the message came from the copyright holder. The link in that talk page is also a broken link. Please remove this image first from the article, before the article can gain FA status. Meanwhile, I'm going to tag the image with copyvio message to admin. — Indon (reply) — 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Possible copyvio image Thanks again for pointing out the error. The image has been replaced. However, we'll communicate with the owner of the victoria memorial image to give consent in the proper way so that the image can be used in future. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Solved. — Indon (reply) — 11:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support very strong article. well references and informative--ppm 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I fixed the beguni redlink by creating the article. I dont think there are any more redlinks there.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Lots of imporvement since last FAC.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 12:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comments: The last three sections, i.e. Education, Media and Sports, seem to be a big mess of wiki links. Could these links be shortened to look good the page. e.g. instead of Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, IIM Calcutta, etc. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Of course the article would look good if acronyms are used for the institutions. However, there may be a problem. The international audience may not understand the names at one go. If we use the full names, the names are relatively easily understandable. As for overwikilinking in other sections, we'll de-wikilink some words. However, it won't be possible to dewikilink proper nouns, unless already wikilinked upstream in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not unable to understand the problem associated with shortening the name. The link I have provided earlier is not a redirected link. If any reader wants to know the full form of the name, (s)he can know by keeping cursor on the link itself. There is nothing necessary to click the link to know about. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read Acronyms and abbreviations in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. It states "Do not assume that your reader is familiar with the acronym or abbreviation you are using. The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses. This tells readers they will probably find it later in the text and makes it easy for them to refer back to it." This article follows the MoS. That's why full names have been used. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Its clearer to me now, I support the article to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Other comments: Now, it's a nicely organized article, but after I read again and again, I realized that this article still looks like a page in a Lonely Planet book. The whole article explains about situations in West Bengal when you're going to live or to visit or to study (with list of universities) there. There's something missing from this article to become a comprehensive encyclopaedic item, as stated in criterion 1.(b) of WP:WIAFA. Here are some missing major facts from the article:
  • Environmental problem. There is an ongoing major environmental health disaster in Bangladesh and West Bengal, where ground water has been contaminated with arsenic. It has been reported in many places, but nowhere it is found in the article.
  • Industrialization problem. In a rapid growth of economy with high dense of population, industrialization becomes a major problem in West Bengal. This includes the land acquisition problem to convert agricultural fields into factories, which is missing in the article.

  — Indon (reply) — 11:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Thanks a lot, again, for drawing attention to this aspect. We shall try to incorporate these things. However, this land acquisition thing is relatively new and needs some time to get stabilised. Still, will try to incorporate. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reply The points raised and a few additional points have been incorporated in the text. Citations have been provided/ texts modified where "citation needed" tags were placed. Please see and comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading at the assertion, I'm a bit disappointed for the ground water contamination issue in this article. I am okay with the one-sentence of land acquisition problem, because it is a new issue. However, the arsenic contamination is huge problem in the Ganges river, and it is only stated by a single sentence and a single source. I expect more of 1-2 paragraphs, or even 1 section about Environmental issues. It is not enough to explain about how many people are affected, what are the long-term causes and effects to the health of the people and also to the agricultural products, what are the main cause of this problem, the government response to handle this problem, etc. This is a big disaster for the area, because it is the world's biggest case of ground water contamination. Take your time to dig into references and literatures (I'm sure there are abundant reliable sources for this issue) and present here in a balance weight. Otherwise this article is merely a tourism guide page. — Indon (reply) — 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, sections for Indian states are following an established template. The question about arsenic or any other environmental problems the state faces should be proportional to its importance relative to all of "Geography and Climate" of West Bengal. "Arsenic problem in Ganges delta" should have its separate article linked from this article. --ppm 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As ppm has indicated, the article follows the guidelines laid out in WikiProject Indian states and, of course, tries to follow summary style (...staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail...) as described in Wikipedia:What is a featured article?. That is why a full section on Environmental Issues cannot be done. And creating 1 or 2 paragraph on arsenic contamination or pollution as a whole would not be proper for summary style. That is why one sentence has been incorporated. The points Indon has raised on Arsenic poisoning are very important, but more suitable for a seperate article probably. Of course it may be stated that this contamination is a part of world's biggest case of groundwater pollution - I am adding that soon. However, if you may attract our attention towards some more problems that we may have missed in the article, that will be truely beneficial for the exhaustiveness of the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is a FAC for Indian portal, then I'll follow the Indian guidelines. Here, I'm just following WP:WIAFA guideline. There was one major fact missing in this article, and now it is inserted as one single line in the article. I still feel it is not enough, compare to the magnitude of the issue. I don't want to attract your attention toward a certain problem, but this issue really relates directly to the WB state. I don't think by giving one section of Environmental issue would distract readers from the main topic. A general reader will be interested to read all views about the state, not only list of universities, list of newspapers, list of cultural events, etc. — Indon (reply) — 03:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:WIAFA states that the article "...complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects..." That is why the article tries to follow WikiProject Indian states. And lists of institutions/newspapers/sports venues are provided per the guidelines in this relevant wikiproject.There is no entity such as "a FAC for Indian portal".

Of course, for being "comprehensive", the article has to discuss all aspects of the state. And thanks a lot to Indon for pointing out the major omission of the arsenic problem. But this article is not a place to discuss the details of the problem. The problem has been discussed in the article arsenic contamination of groundwater, and that has been linked to the article West Bengal. May be we have missed even more aspects/problems which should have been there. It would be greatly helpful if those are ponited out. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I have no comment about this FAC, neither support nor object. — Indon (reply) — 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Exemplary per above. Hope others will study this article and get the other states featured. Saravask 01:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a and 2a. There's a lot of good in this article, but before I support it, I'd like to see some thorough copy-editing. Here are examples (don't just fix these, please, get a good word-nerd who's unfamiliar with the text to sift through the whole article).
  • Second para: ruled by empires and kingdoms is not quite right, grammatically. Ruled by emperors and kings (and dynasties), yes. Incorporated into or conquered by kingdoms/empires, yes. I'm unsure which is correct. "the reign of the Mughal empire"—nope, empires don't reign, people do.
  • "would serve for many years"—journalistic conditional would be better IMV as simply "served for many years" (not compulsory, though). "ALthough" better in this register than "though" (personal preference, supported by several authorities).
  • In the lead, there's rather too much detail about who governed it when. I'd have thought a summary of this was better in the lead—the region was part of a number of empires and kingdoms during the past two millenia; in ... , the British East India Company .... Also: "Known for its cultural heritage, West Bengal has been home to notable poets, writers, artists and performers. West Bengal has been ruled by the CPI(M)-led Left Front for three decades, making it the world's longest-running democratically-elected communist government." I'd put the culture bit last, and remove the first clause "Known for its cultural heritage", which is implicit in the next clause, and will be fleshed out in the culture section below.
  • No hyphen after -ly words.
  • "date back 4,000 years ago"—Remove "ago", or add "to" before "4,000".
  • "From the 3rd to the 6th centuries CE" and "sixteen"—Please consider consistently doing the reverse: spell out numbers 10 and above, and use numerals for nine and below.
  • Inconsistent use of hyphens, en dashes and em dashes as punctuation for nested clauses. I use em dashes without spaces, but you do have a choice here (en dashes with spaces are acceptable, but not hyphens).
  • WPians all too often use "with" as a connector. It's not classy, and strictly speaking leads to grammatical problems. "Bengal played a major role in Indian independence movement, with revolutionary groups like Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar dominating the scene." Try: "Bengal played a major role in THE Indian independence movement, IN WHICH revolutionary groups SUCH AS Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar dominatED." "The scene" is very informal. There's another "with" connector in the subsequent sentence.
  • "Certain portions of Bihar were also subsequently merged with West Bengal." "Certain" adds absolutely nothing here; try "Parts of Bihar ...". "Also" is redundant and should be struck out.
  • "Over the 1960s and 1970s"—no, "during". Tony 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

CommentI have not looked through the list that you've made, but I've gone through the entire article and made as many revisions and changes with words and phrases that caught my attention. I am hoping that I've caught most of your objections without deliberately trying to pick only those out. I'll run through the article once again but in the meantime thanks for the constructive criticism. --Antorjal 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very good article. It wouldn't hurt to do a little more to describe the differences between the city life and the villiage life, which are very different. But the article is very good. HeBhagawan 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very well written and concise. A few points which I feel might be optionally included :
  • Demographics could mention the chinese immigration during the cultural revolution years and the formation of a chinatown.
  • The food section contains a lot of urban food details. No mention of traditionally village staples like pantaa bhaat, or popular rural sweets like pithey or morobba, or rural brews like hadiya, mahua and chhaang.
  • Maybe a line on the role Bengali media played during the Independence movement.

I strongly support the article in its present state, though. Pradiptaray 15:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support The article is informative and has a good amount of references. But, it needs a thorough copyedit for prose issues. The sentences are long and frequently have separators like mdash; and ";" which make it hard to read. Will fully support once such issues are fixed. I've done some copyedit myself and might work on it tomorrow too, but it would be great if someone else too steps in. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CommentAgreed. I've revised all sections of the article extensively and substituted commas for semicolons where possible. I've also reduced the number of parentheses, and introduced variants and explanations within the body of the text. There were a few long sentences and some run-ons that I've endeavored to fix. Please take a look at the article again. Thanks. --Antorjal 18:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Full support now after great copyediting by Antorjal and Dwaipayan. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. My only suggestion is that it could be a little longer to provide more information.HeBhagawan 04:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina

Self-nom. I've been working on this article for a while, and I believe it is now ready for FAC and meets WP:WIAFA. It has already been reviewed by WikiProject Tropical cyclones and it received an A-Class rating. It also is a good article. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support; nice. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Titoxd. CrazyC83 02:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Dr. Cash 03:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support; it's a bit short, but then again it's a subarticle. Would like to see a bit of expansion if possible. Everyking 08:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article, and rest per nom. Hello32020 20:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sandy (Talk) 21:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 12:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I'd like to see more context, like a paragraph about the conditions that support its formation. It doesn't tell me how or why it came to be, just really dry one thing happened after another. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I expanded a little bit the formation section, to address this. Mostly, an upper-level tropospheric trough stopped shearing the system, allowing tropical cyclogenesis to take place. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Do they speak English in What? :) Say what again!. - Taxman ^Talk 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The thing that was stopping the other thing to get stronger went away, so the other thing strengthened. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
        • There we go. :) - Taxman ^Talk 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What I was thinking was a little broader than the immediate context, something like a summary of the rest of the season, and the things that happened in the season. The article as it is is extemely narrow, so I feel like there's a lot of room for context to expand it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 15:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that is well beyond the scope of the article; the relevant article would be the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, which is also an FA, and is prominently linked in the navigation template at the right-hand side of the page. The purpose of the article is to describe the immediate context of the formation of Katrina, as it is a subarticle of Hurricane Katrina itself. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I'm just a supporter of the idea that every article should be able to stand on its own. I guess it would be a little duplicative, but the scope just feels so narrow as it is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it's a subarticle of Katrina. Given the topic, it does stand on its own. Any info about the rest of the season isn't about the article title. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Sure it is. An article about a person should talk about their parents, for example, to be thorough. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; great article (rather ironic that you nominated this for deletion not too long ago!) --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support: The article is fairly well written, but could be improved. Although the information included is quite interesting, useful and important, more could be added. Dhastings 23:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Gustav (2002)

Self-nomination. Here I am with another article I've worked hard to bring back from the dead. Gustav was a low-impact storm, but there was a surprising amount of information available about it, including some that the original version of this article omitted (quite similar to Hurricane Esther (1961)). I've pretty much finished the article, as I've got all the most important info here, and it's a GA now. Hurricanehink suggested I put it up here, so here it is. :) --Coredesat 01:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink is annoyed that you took his catch phrase :P It's comprehensive and well-written, so Support. Good work on this one. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 01:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 02:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work on this one guys. Hello32020 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; all my concerns addressed. Object; too many hurricane articles on the FAC page. =) Actually, this is really good. Fix the units though—sometimes metric is in the parenthesis, and other times English is there instead. I'd rather see metric first, but either way, make it consistent. And don't forget to put in &nbsp; between numbers and abbreviations of units (keeps the line from breaking and stranding a number on the line above its unit). I've fixed a couple of these.

Prose could use a little work too. "Associated" in the first sentence of Storm History is used as a verb, which seems strange. In the next sentence it's used as an adjective. I say change the first one to something a bit clearer. This phrase doesn't make sense: "became extratropical shortly after while over the island." Some people might not know what a "storm-force wind gust" is (link Beaufort Scale or better yet, make it more clear). What does it mean to "nearly disrupt" something? Disruption doesn't imply cancellation (just annoyance), so perhaps "nearly" can be removed. What does "Climatology favors the formation of at least three hurricanes by September 11" really mean? Is that an average or a guarantee or what? Give this a good read over (or get someone else to do it; even better) and fix these and other minor problem areas. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed the problems you brought up, and removed the superfluous external links section (there is already a track map, and the summary doesn't have any information that isn't in any of the references). --Coredesat 05:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"An area of disturbed weather associated with a weak surface trough and a stronger upper-level trough between the Bahamas and Bermuda on 6 September." This is not a sentence if "associated" is used as an adjective—there is no verb. What actually happened on the 6th of September? If "associated" is used as a verb, that's better, but it's an uncommon usage and should be changed (I tried, but was reverted). --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A very good read. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 11:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Also to clarify to Spangineer: "associated with" was not meant as a verb, the disturbed weather was effectively "caused" by the trof. It was associated with the trof, it didn't associate with it. – Chacor 14:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support No other option.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sound film

Self-nomination. Stable article judged A-class by both WikiProject Filmmaking and WikiProject Films. I'd like to take this opportunity to make note of the significant contribution editor Walloon has made not only to this article but to Wikipedia's coverage of media history generally.—DCGeist 19:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very long. A lot of images, further reading and external links: care for a cutdown before I support it? Wiki-newbie 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There's no further reading section--every item listed in Sources is cited in the text. All external links are to professional sources with valuable detailed information on various aspects of the subject matter; descriptions have been provided in all cases to facilitate use of this section. Article is long because it covers an international topic involving complex developments in technology, commerce, and aesthetics and resolves a large number of discrepancies among published and online sources; can you identify what area or areas of the article you feel go into unhelpful detail?—DCGeist 20:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support I've had my eye casually watching this page for a while now, and it's been a wonder to see it slowly grow into a shining example of quality. Compare this version just before DCGeist started working on it to the current version, and you can clearly see the quality and breadth of work, all clearly referenced and notated. (And yes, Walloon's work and contributions should also be well-noted.) As a member of WikiProject Filmmaking, I'm proud to include this among our articles and believe that it is well above and beyond the quality of all three of our current featured articles (35 mm film, Panavision, and WGA screenwriting credit system). It is indeed long, but considering the subject matter, an appropriate length, IMHO. Were this to be an article on an obscure technical detail or a specific film sound system, I would expect a shorter and more concise article to be enough for featured-status. My only objection is the Aesthetic quality section; the two lists are awkward because one is a POV-list of the most notable silents and the other is a US National Registry list of the early sound films - there isn't a common standard for inclusion between the two, and there is the POV issue. I also disagreed with the assessments on which films would be ranked highly against the silents...just seems a bit too POV. Potentially subjective lists like that also tend to invite listcruft; I'd try to find a way to either make the lists less subjective (both coming from a common authoritative and citable source) or somehow re-edit the section to address these issues. Best of luck and look forward to seeing that star! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for your very kind words. I've sought to address the issue you've flagged by restructuring the lists of historically lauded transitional-period silent and sound films so they both reflect the collective judgment of critics and industry professionals polled in recent years by major Western media entities. Impt point: I by no means sought to restrict the roster of polls considered (currently those of Time Out, The Viilage Voice, and Sight & Sound) to ones administered from English-speaking countries. If anyone could lead me to reliable results (beyond just the top 10) from the polls conducted by Editorial Jaguar (Spain, 2001), FIAF (Franco-American, 1995), Kinovedcheskie (Russia, 1995), and reported international polls held in France, Germany, and Romania in 1995, the article would be most grateful.—DCGeist 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is an extremely comprehensive, well-researched article. Perhaps my only problem with it might be its tone in some sections.

Perhaps Ich küsse Ihre Hand, Madame (1929) would be better remembered today if costar Marlene Dietrich, instead of kissing their hands, had been invited to sing.

Comments like this run up against WP:OR and sound too breezily casual. But again, great article. --Zantastik talk 04:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for your comment, Zantastik. I'm not quite sure what to do here. The caption might have struck you as a little breezy, but it's anything but casual. It addresses four points pretty efficiently: (a) it acknowledges the oddity of the image (by far the best available) directly contradicting the title; (b) it informs the reader that the renowned Dietrich starred in the film; (c) it informs the reader that Dietrich, renowned for her singing, didn't sing in the film; and (d) it underscores that this historically momentous film is virtually unknown today. If it flirts with OR, it does so only in an uncontentious way that virtually anyone interested in film history might well come up with. Any suggestions?—DCGeist 05:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC

I was under the minor impression that Dietrich wasn't a household name until 1930 (The Blue Angel). Girolamo Savonarola 12:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly right. As soon as someone (Von Sternberg) had the bright idea to have her sing on film, both she and the movie (Der Blaue Engel—the first talkie in which you could hear her) became household names.—DCGeist 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well, it is comprehensive and verifiable enough. Wiki-newbie 11:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support --WS 16:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice article, but according to WP:SIZE, the lead should be approx. 3 paragraph long. CG 19:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 2d lede graf added per CG's comment. The definition of the topic and its importance are straightforward enough that a 3d graf doesn't seem called for.—DCGeist 20:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: All of the fair use images need rationales. Also some are missing identification of their current copyright holders. Andrew Levine 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks, Andrew. Rationales have now been provided for all. Due to the combination of (a) the images' age (one is from 1934; the rest are all at least 75 years old) and (b) the fact that they are all works of corporate authorship (images from, publicity photos for, or posters of commercial films and commercial film systems, except for one magazine cover), it is extremely difficult (if possible at all) to trace the current copyright holders (if any) for most of the images, due to changes in corporate ownership and exchanges of assets over seven and a half decades. By the same token, (a) not one film or other artifact is illustrated more than once and (b) the use of each image falls easily within, even at the very heart of, fair use standards.—DCGeist 05:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of the board game Monopoly

Peer review can be found here.

This is the third article I have brought to FAC, and another true collaboration. Derek Ross must be given a lot of credit for expanding the history section of the original Monopoly (game) article. In doing some research of my own, I also expanded the section to the point where I thought it best to fork off the section into its own article, and thus reduce the size of the main article. "History of the board game Monopoly" has recently reached 38K in size, which is, I think, a testament to the amount of material available on the game. I have acquired many of the sources myself, to use as proper references (including four books by Philip Orbanes, one of which I've owned since it was first published in the 1980s, and even a self-published book on the game's early history, which can be purchased by contacting its author, or finding it on eBay). There are now eighty-four references covering the game's history over the last century. I have also added four images to the page (the patent reproduction image "came with the move"), all of which have proper fair use rationale. --JohnDBuell 19:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - as far as I can see it satisfies all criteria. Nice intro, flows well and negotiates the story well.Cas Liber 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Kudos to those who contributed to the article. Obviously a lot of work went into it; the writing makes the content lucid. There are many references and more or less appropriately frequent and helpful links. I would suggest adding a couple of more links, but otherwise it's exemplary. 70.101.175.246 22:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Did I not sign in? Sorry. This is not a vote, but a clarification of who submitted the above one. Good article, by the way. Gracenotes ^T § 22:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I did not want to make the article "too blue" or "too red" (there are a handful of "red links" which someone might object to...). Which specific names/phrases/etc. would you recommend further links to? --JohnDBuell 22:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. Looks like you went ahead and did them. :) --JohnDBuell 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Name should be sorted out first, should be History of Monopoly which is entirely unambiguous. --Oldak Quill 23:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After this was discussed during Peer Review, it's been left at its current name. I disagree that History of Monopoly is unambiguous, and the current title is perfectly clear. --JohnDBuell 23:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the Peer Review and fail to see how it was discussed. The Peer Review is an exchange between you and two other users: one comment with a series of replies. The initial comment says nothing about the title; you mention it in your third response and there is no reply to this. Even if it had been discussed extensively, it would not shut off any discussion here.

The title is clearly ambiguated by the capitalised "Monopoly" without the need to mention it being a board game. Think about this the other way, would you also accept History of the economic concept monopoly? --Oldak Quill 07:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I am quite sure (but not positive) that, per convention, the article should be titled History of Monopoly (game). -- Kicking222 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OldakQuill: The discussion about the title was brought up during peer review, and was covered on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly. True no consensus was reached between two of us, but I thought it best to leave it alone with no other votes. And yes I would support the latter, though actually that would probably be a jumping off point to monopolies that were broken up, such as History of the Standard Oil monopoly, History of the U.S. Steel monopoly, etc. I did not like long titles at first, but I do see where they make the topic abundantly clear, which I think WP:TITLE summarizes nicely.

Kicking222: Valid point. Unfortunately I don't see anything under WP:TITLE for sub-pages. I've worked on a number of pages dealing with Science Fiction, and there aren't really any standards as I could see; I just created pages with logical titles, and sometimes long ones. I would not be averse to putting FAC on hold to allow for a discussion on the article's talk page via WP:RM. --JohnDBuell 15:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I added the page History of monopoly, which differentiates between Monopoly and monopolies (with respect to x, of course). The redirect from History of Monopoly makes sense, since only when capitalized is monopoly a game, but I'm wondering if this Monopoly redirect mess, if any, can be elucidated, and if I helped, or hurt. Gracenotes ^T § 17:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I had actually thought about making JUST that kind of disambiguation page when it first was brought up, though I fell ill and was not on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Well done. I don't know either if that will help settle the dispute though. :) --JohnDBuell 17:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point that I don't consider the discussion to have been dealt with either in the PR or on the article talk page. I tried to be bold and move it, but was reverted, and that amounts to little else but a lack of consensus. The current title is awkward and cumbersome. It seems to have been chosen because it looks good in the lead (there are better alternatives for that), not because it's an intuitive title.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Peter, I have stated that I agree there is no consensus, and I have stated that I am more than willing to allow the article title discussion continue elsewhere. I have started an RFC (it seemed the most appropriate). Please feel free to vote under any of the proposals on Talk:History of the board game Monopoly#Discussion of article title. Please don't feel that I'm ignoring your opinion or anyone else's, I'm simply choosing to disagree. --JohnDBuell 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo 01:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The current lead focuses a little too much on the patent/invention issues. It should summarize the information on the localized versions, championships, and other things the article covers as well. Andrew Levine 05:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, the article should make some mention of the spinoff games Parker Brothers made in the 1980s, including Free Parking, Boardwalk, and Don't Go To Jail. Andrew Levine 05:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro - revised. The spin-offs are in there, and dated, under Localizations, licenses and spin-offs. The spin-offs that have articles are wikilinked. --JohnDBuell 05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm worried about the second lead paragraph being too long now. If necessary, the last line, about Hasbro's website only mentioning Charles Darrow, could be moved to the end of the Anti-Monopoly vs. General Mills Fun Group section. I think it would fit fine right after the sentence about Anspach's book. --JohnDBuell 05:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Really Like Qaanaaq 08:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Rlevse 11:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Nice article, but I don't like the images which displays Monopoly sets on a bed sheet. It's really unprofessional. It would be better if taken on a white background. CG 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a large white background at my disposal, nor could I find a free alternative. If anyone would like to try to edit out the backgrounds using a photo program, feel free. --JohnDBuell 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the title is non-standard and would be better as History of Monopoly. I could also live wth History of Monopoly (board game). Tuf-Kat 02:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Because WP:RM doesn't seem to fit, I'm starting an RFC at WP:RFC/HIST. --JohnDBuell 14:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. It is a great piece of work, but a featured article cannot have a needlessly contrived name. Will support if the name is changed to "History of Monopoly." Andrew Levine 01:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • History of Monopoly could be misconstrued as refering to the history of the practise of real world monopolies... Fieari 02:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • It could only be misunderstood in Crappy English, which isn't supposed to be the language choice to begin with. / Peter ^Isotalo 05:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment If it's History of Monopoly, which monopoly would it refer to? Yes, this will confuse people, though it may seem obvious to us. As far as I'm concerned, objecting to the name on this basis is non-actionable. Rlevse 09:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It's obviously actionable; the action required is a simple page move. And there's no confusion over the name, since nobody will think it refers to, say, the Standard Oil monopoly if it doesn't have Standard Oil in the title.Andrew Levine 12:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Obviously a name change is something that can be acted on - I just worry about the precedent that is being set. Several titles were recommended for History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America), but nobody voted object just over the title - I've been back through the Peer Reviews and FA candidacies. --JohnDBuell 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Where were the other titles proposed there? I had trouble finding mention of them. The reason nobody objected is that nobody thought that the title "History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)" was substandard. Anyway, I don't see what's so bad about a precedent for having clear titles in FAs, since the article's mame is the first impression we leave on the reader. Andrew Levine 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The only problem with your objection is you're basically saying you'll object until it is the name you want, which isn't fair because reasonable people can disagree about what the best name would be. I have to agree that History of Monopoly is potentially confusing. A lot of titles are capitalized so in a title, capitalizing alone is not enough to clearly designate it as a proper noun. But the point is that can be discussed on the talk page. Objecting because it's not the title you prefer isn't proper. - Taxman ^Talk 14:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I concur with Taxman. 'History of Monopoly' seems needlessly confusing. Raul654 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I'm not sure Andrew is objecting until the article has a name he wants. He's objecting to a name that seems out-of-sync with naming convention and has stated he will be happy with a few alternatives. --Oldak Quill 11:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The proposed names and voting are on the talk page of the article. And sorry, but I have to agree that objecting solely on the name is a bad precedent. 140.32.73.19 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - great article, and once the name is changed, it will be even better. --andrewI20^Talk 06:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Two minor notes: more pictures would be nice, and note section should be renamed references. But I have a major problem with references: The Billion Dollar Monopoly Swindle, a major reference of the article, is a self-published book (see Xlibris). I'd like to see this ref discussed, and preferably replaced/supplemented with proper peer reviewed sources. Once this is done I'd be happy to support.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Two of the books I've used are "self-published" but any of them have flaws. Brady's book told only the "Charles Darrow invented Monopoly" story, as did Gyles Brandreth's. Subsequent works, however, like Orbanes's just published book, build on these (including Anspach's and Sadowski's) and expand further. I've tried to make this article a reflection of all sources, and I HAVE indicated where published sources disagree (like Brandreth and Orbanes). Further, Prof. Anspach himself has told me that his book (now under the title Monopolygate) is being made into a documentary, and may be re-published by a firm other than Xilibris soon.

As far as pictures - I don't have access to any of the antique (pre-Parker Brothers) boards - apparently a number of them are kept by Forbes in New York City. What I've been able to submit I've done from my own collection. Do you have any specific suggestions of anything I could submit, or request from other collectors (provided they are willing to do CC-licensing)? --JohnDBuell 21:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I added images of the first pages of Magie's second patent application, and Darrow's patent application, taken from the USPTO website, and converted to PNG. --JohnDBuell 18:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

While it would be great to get the antique edition photos, an easier thing to do would be to include some (perhaps as a gallery on Commons) of 'theme' editions - like Star Trek Monopoly and such.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A great deal of the boards submitted on the List of licensed Monopoly game boards are mine. I'll try to arrange some and add a photograph by this weekend, in a manner similar to the U.S. Standard Editions and International Editions photographs I've already posted. --JohnDBuell 01:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syed Ahmed Khan

I submit to your attention this article about a key Indian Muslim political figure. Many facts are controversial, but fully researched and cited. I would like your help in cleaning up any/all enduring problems, especially on potential violations of WP:NPOV. I would like to have your support in making this a featured article. Thanks, Rama's arrow 01:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Wow, thats one of the smoothest, in terms of flow and wording, articles I ever read. Even better it meets all criteria. I got to say Rama, with so many FA drives you really becoming a pro - Tutmosis 16:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you my friend - I really appreciate it. I've got to say I was a bit frightened when this FAC didn't get a single comment for more than 36 hours! Rama's arrow 16:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Great article! Definitely FA material- it is well-referenced and has great formal language. I do suggest that the Hindi-Urdu controversy be improved upon as I don't think it explains enough about how Hindi and Urdu are almost the same language. Thanks! Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I didn't read it all but I am a little concerned with its reliance on internet sources. I would think enough scholarly books (that might be more representative of views about him?) have been written about him to believe that his article doesn't need to be so internet centric. gren グレン 19:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• There seem to be six non-Internet sources out of 17 total. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• But those are the ones cited less (in general). Also, they aren't necessarily peer reviewed works or... are they well known? I cannot judge that. What is the Gale Research one? It doesn't seem that bibliography entry is full. gren グレン 22:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I found the article well-written, just a few minor hitches with the images. P0402020301.jpg is most probably from Pakistan. Even though its copyright has expired, the license needs to be corrected. "The Wisdom Fund" is based in Virginia, so images from it can also not be claimed under PD-India. Please check for others too. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

A slight misunderstanding - the image belongs to the Social Reformer itself, which is PD-India - its not from Pakistan because the item was published in an area now located in India by Indian citizens. And the "Wisdom Fund" (whatever that is) does not hold copyright on this Social Reformer. Rama's arrow 19:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Support. A few minor concerns:
  • "His paternal grandfather Syed Hadi held a mansab, a high-ranking administrative position and the title of Jawwad Ali Khan in the court of Alamgir II." - what does the title of Jawwad Ali Khan signify? Was this a positional title, or an alternative name for him?
  • "Subsequent tutors instructed him in mathematics, astronomy and Islamic jurisprudence." - Other tutors, at the same time? Or tutors who came later? If you're unsure, a neutral option would be to make it "Other tutors..."
  • "In 1842, he completed the Jila-ul-Qulub bi Zikr il Mahbub and the Tuhfa-i-Hasan and Tahsil fi jar-i-Saqil in 1844, focusing on religious and cultural subjects.[5] In 1852, he published the two works Namiqa dar bayan masala tasawwur-i-Shaikh and Silsilat ul-Mulk." - translations? I was particularly intrigued by some words I could recognized, and I'm eager to know their meanings, especially "masala" :) There are also other instances like this such as Tabyin-ul-Kalam etc.
  • In 1858, he was appointed to a high-ranking post at the court in Muradabad, where he began working on his most famous literary work. Publishing the booklet Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind (The Causes of the Indian Mutiny) in 1859, Sir Syed studied the causes of the revolt. - was his most famous work the Asbab-e-Bhaghawath-e-Hind? Please don't leave any chance for ambiguity
  • "Supporters of Sir Syed contend that his political vision gave an independent political expression to the Muslim community, which aided its goal to secure political power in India." - Muslim political power in India is minimal, and Sir Syed had always feared that Muslims would be unable to gain adequate political representation in India. Do you mean the formation of a separate nation, Pakistan, since the article asserts that he advocated the Two-Nation Theory?
  • Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't the fact that he is knighted mean that he is an KBE/GBE in the Order of the British Empire? Or was the current practice not in use in his time? If that is so, then that should be mentioned in the intro, right after his name.

Could you inform me once you're done. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Shreshth - thanks for your input. I will answer point by point:

1. "Jawwad Ali Khan" was like a royal name. Notable examples include Shaista Khan and Islam Khan. I've added this mention[14]
2. Also fixed the tutor thing.
3. I'm afraid I couldn't find any Urdu translations of those titles. I could suggest catching hold of someone who knows Urdu or digging up the words in a dictionary yourself, but I would avoid that in case you somehow come up with an altered translation/meaning, which would violate WP:OR.
4. Yes the Mutiny booklet was his most famous work[15].
5. Muslim political power in India is minimal - your POV. The statement you mention asserts that Sir Syed helped create a Muslim political class. Before he did, there were no Muslim politicians/leaders, but his work helped create Muslim political bodies and leaders, whose mission was to secure Muslim power. Also, Sir Syed's life is quite far apart from partition, which was first asserted by Iqbal in 1930. Its not correct to make the assumption that he wanted partition, but it is true that he saw Muslims as a separate cultural, political group.
6. The Order of the Star of India was a different title during India's time as a colony of the empire. Its not the same as the OBE/MBE. Rama's arrow 18:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
   1. Changed to support. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 15:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• I would support now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice now. Rlevse 15:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I had done an exhaustive review of the article during its PR. I have been going through all my points and also had another look at the article. All those points are addressed now and the article is very nice. Good work. - Aksi_great (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment per lack of reliable academic sources. Wikipedia should add new material online, rather than simply compile data from various websites. Google Books search found "The Life and Work of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan", by George Farquhar Irving Graham (1974), and "Sir Syed Ahmed Khan: The Saviour of Muslim India", by Syed Sami Ahmad (2002). Please use these for referencing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand why you object, but I think that you should word it differently for clearer understanding. Rather than saying that the following works be used for references, it is preferable to point out references you find unreliable, or facts you find needing more reliable/neutral sources. This will both be helpful for the editors (for they would know what to look for), and also more comprehensively satisfy your objection (I believe that if the editors use the sources mentioned just once and sit back, it wouldn't be what you were looking for in the first place). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• I've addressed your points - about 10 new citations from multiple books, including those you suggested. Rama's arrow 13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and well documented. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Belgrade

The article failed its first nomination a few weeks ago. The issues raised were: the article was listy, poorly referenced, not written in a summary style. Since then:

1. The lists have either been written out or moved to subpages.
2. The article has gone from 60kb to 54kb, and the amount of relevant information has actually been increased.
3. I discovered that the geography section was a copyright violation and rewrote it.
4. There are now 90+ inline citations, compared to 9 before.
5. The external links section has been thoroughly pruned (from almost 30(!) to 5).

--estavisti 21:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Quick question, how come you guys didn't use Template:citeweb for the references? Just linking a webpage makes it hard to determine verifiability of the sources. - Tutmosis 18:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the huge majority of sources are either official webpages, or links to articles in reputable newspapers/magazines. As for why "we" didn't use Template:citeweb, that would be because I've been the only major contributor in the past few weeks, and I've never even heard of that template. :-) --estavisti 18:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, I tried to bring this article up to standard by looking at current featured articles about cities, such as Ann Arbor, San Francisco and Sarajevo, none of which use Template:citeweb in abudance. Ann Arbor, three times, SF, four times, Sarajevo not at all. Finally, none of the sources are books, which makes the template sort of redundant. --estavisti 18:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support well per Wikipedia:Citation templates, citeweb isn't required so I'll let it go. Personally I find it quite helpful because it easily identifies information such as author or publisher of the website page. Also I don't get your last comment about it being redundant because no books are used since this template is only for web sources. Overall I found the article meets the criteria and deserves featured status since a lot of hard work went into it. One thing I have to criticise is the article is very, or even extremely to the point. Therefore I found the flow quite rough as it was one fact after the other. - Tutmosis 21:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support because, in general, the article is good and it also contain municipality map drawn by me (just a joke). However, somebody really should correct this awfull error which could be seen in Opera browser (603 version). PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that there is a problem in Opera 603. However, the article page works perfectly in IE 5 -7, Mozilla Firefox 1.5 & 2, as well as in Opera 9, which surely accounts for well over 90% of internet users. It's simply impossible to please everyone, especially as I don't have Opera 6.03 myself, so I can't test what displays well in that browser and what doesn't.--estavisti 02:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - rather poor layout, particularly due to the large size of the photos. Additionally, some images, such as Image:Dhbs.jpg and Image:Narodni Muzej.jpg, are copyrighted. A free use alternative should be found. Some parts of the article, such as the economy section, are also somewhat short. On the whole, however the article is comprehensive and well-sourced. Ronline ✉ 10:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In what way is the layout poor? The photos are also about the size of photos in Sarajevo or San Francisco. As for the two copyrighted photos, they have been replaced with alternatives. --estavisti 18:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see what Ronline means about layout. It's not the size that's the issue, but the placement. Move some around - some of the right, some on the left, some a little bigger, some a little smaller. Do you really need them all?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the placement seems to be the problem. There also continue to be photos with copyright problems: Image:Jevreji.jpg, Image:Belgrad palac1.gif, Image:Hram sv sava.jpg, Image:BGArena1.jpg, Image:Stadion CrvenaZvezda.jpg. Overall, my general impression is that this article is not yet FA status - it doesn't have that "FA vibe". Ronline ✉ 05:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I might be able to get a few PD photos today, and replace these ones. I really like Image:Hram sv sava.jpg though :-(--estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - much improved over the previous FAC. I'm not a big fan of the list of Sister Cities or the Gallery, though. Surely one of those photos could be used as a main photo in the infobox in the upper right corner of the article?--DaveOinSF 02:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've used a view from the river, with Belgrade Cathedral prominent. It's a shame, we have an absolutely perfect image, which is unfortunately unsourced, and the original uploader isn't around these days. I'll move the other photos around a bit, to vary it bit. --estavisti 03:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment.Three concerns:
• "Later that day tanks were deployed onto the streets in order to restore order.[24][25][26][27]" Four inline citations in a row in a FAC?! Not nice!
• "Culture" section is under-citated.
• I have the impression that galleries are not recommended for FAs.--Yannismarou 10:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. I second Yannismarou's concerns. The pile of images at the end of the page is not good. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an image depository. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I rearranged the four citations, so that now there are two at the end of the paragraph. There's not really that much to cite for the culture section. According to WP:Citing sources, sources should be added: "if you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source." I don't any of the stuff about the bands can be disputed. You may not have heard of them, but millions of people know of those bands and their association with the city. However, I'll add some sources anyway. As for the gallery, it's gone :-) --estavisti 11:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If Belgrade passes as featured article, is it possible to target some day in the future? (I am not so familiar with featured articles policy here...) I am talking as the president of Wikimedia Serbia. We can make some promotion of Wikipedia in Belgrade and Serbia if the article passes nomination. However, we need some time to organize it. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. The article is not bad, but there are some issues:
  • the image layout looks rather anarchic.
  • some image problems:
    • Image:Pogled_sa_Save-big.jpg is taken from a site which claims "© Univerzitet u Beogradu"
      • Someone removed the image from the article. Nikola
    • Image:Kalemegdan.jpg has no author (there's no equivalent image on de.wiki)
      • I remember that it is the same author as Image:Ruski car.jpg; I contacted the author to clarify the situation. Nikola
        • He isn't, so I replaced the image. He doesn't recall giving the permission for Ruski car, but agrees that the image could be used. Nikola 12:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Image:Belgrad palac1.gif is from a website claiming "© 2002 - 2006 Travellerspoint Travel Community"
      • I photographed the building and uploaded the image at Image:Belgrade Old Court.jpg, and will replace the old image in all articles. Nikola
    • Image:Stadion CrvenaZvezda.jpg is a bad fair-use case.
      • I will remove it from the article. Nikola
    • Image:BGArena1.jpg has no source, also bad fair-use case.
      • I photographed that building too and will replace the old image. Nikola
  • it uses two definitions of the "Balkans": Bucharest is a city in the Balkans, but the left bank of Belgrade is in Central Europe. It should either use the Danube border for the Balkans or it should not. :-) bogdan 18:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will reword. Nikola

Hm... in fact all the images from Category:Belgrade images should have their copyright checked. bogdan 19:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, if not most then many of them have clear status. Nikola 16:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• • It would be great if some print sources would be used for the history section.
    • Actually, references 1 and 4 are on-line editions of print books :) and references 22 and 30-38 are on-line editions of print newspapers or magazines, and there are more. Nikola 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The bridge photo is awful: it tries to photograph two bridges, but you can't see well either of them. A plain photo of any bridge would do. ;-) bogdan 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Will find or upload tomorrow. Nikola 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Would sr:Слика:Th_Mostovi_beograda.jpg fit the bill? Nikola 22:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Further comment. Apart from the things I initially mentioned (and are now fixed - thanks for your response) and the possible copyright problems with the photos (I am not an expert in this domain), I also want to point out that the article has no printed sources (books, articles etc.) citated. I know this is not necessarily an obstacle for FA status, but for such a historical and important city I would like to have some verifiable printed sources written by authors who sign them and not just the official site of the city (citated c. 25 times) or all the other sites. Thanks!--Yannismarou 19:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of 94 references in the article, around 17 (18%) are on-line editions of printed sources. If you count by groups (all references from beograd.org.yu together etc.) percentage would be higher still. Nikola 22:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the people above bring up a valid concern, and it appears the article became even more clustered with images now. Can we stick to 1 per section, or 2 for a big section. Since this problem can be easily dealt with, I'll maintain my support but I would like to see some reduction happen. - Tutmosis 23:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I reordered and resized the images. Does it look better now? Not counting the infobox, the twin cities' flags and coats, and "technical" sections, the article has 18 images in 24 sections. Nikola 17:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I forgot this :) The more I work on fixing the few remaining problems, the more I like the article. It is well-written, I can't think of anything that should be in it but isn't, haven't found anything incorrect in it. The images are nice and well-chosen (I agree with Bogdan about the bridges though). I hope this wouldn't count as a self-vote as I haven't worked on the article for a while, and even before, IIRC, my only bigger contribution was the Architecture section. Nikola 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - good article, well-sourced and the image problem seems to have been cleared up. Just a small thing - I think the photo of the Gazela Bridge in the transportation section would be better replaced with a public transport photo of some sort, either of the Beovoz or the GSP system. I'd be interested to see a photo of the Beovoz :) Ronline ✉ 23:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've got some good PD photos coming in from an acquaintance of mine, should be able to insert them tomorrow. Including a replacement for the horrible bridge photo. :-) --estavisti 00:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, like user ronline --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, nice article, and per Nikola. --Pockey 00:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support the amount of work put into overhauling this article is amazing. Support as per Nikola and ronline Хајдук Еру (Talk || Cont) 06:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I try, I try... It'll all be worth it for the final result. --estavisti 06:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I've just noticed the major improvements to this article from the last time I've read it, it looks like FA quality now. // Laughing Man 15:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - The article really changed - it is a much easier read, smaller in size, and actually referenced. A great article. --Krytan 04:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - a great candidate for a Featured Article. --PaxEquilibrium 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)