Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here, we determine which articles are featured on Wikipedia:Featured articles. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work by meeting the featured article criteria. Nominators are expected to make an effort to address objections. If you have worked on your nomination, note it as a "self-nomination". Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each. Before nominating an article, you may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among the reviewers and nominators, and the Featured Article Director (currently Raul654) determines whether there is consensus. If, after sufficient time, objections considered actionable by the Featured Article Director have not been resolved or consensus for promotion has not been reached, a nomination may be removed from the list and archived. The FA Director determines the timing of the process for each nomination. Because you may have spent weeks or even months working on an article, you may feel emotionally attached to it. Although you may know more about the subject than the reviewers, please be aware that all professional writers take criticism from editors, and that contributors should strive to achieve professional quality in their nominations. Therefore, contributors are strongly encouraged to respond positively to criticism. Purge page cache	Shortcut: WP:FAC Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured article tools: What is a featured article? Featured article candidates Featured article review "Today's featured article" This month's queue Featured article log Featured article statistics Former featured articles
Nomination procedure Check the featured article criteria and ensure that the article meets all of them before nominating. Place {{fac}} on the talk page of the nominated article. From there, click on the "leave comments" link. If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Television/archive1. Remember to change the old {{facfailed}} template on the talk page to {{facfailed|Television/archive1}}. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top. Below this title, write your reason for nominating the article and sign with ~~~~. Copy this text:{{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article}}, then edit this page, pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of..." with the name of your nomination. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated article fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). If you believe that the article meets all of the criteria, write *'''Support''' followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the article, please indicate this. If you oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''' followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. Be aware that references on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <del>...</del>) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow reviewers the opportunity to do this themselves. If you feel that the matter has been addressed, say so rather than striking out the reviewer's text. To provide constructive input on a nomination without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 MMORPG 1.2 Siege of Malta (1565) 1.3 The Great Dictator 1.4 Bengali language 1.5 Axis naval activity in Australian waters 1.6 Democratic peace theory 1.7 Finnish Civil War 1.8 Forth 1.9 Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo 1.10 Pharaoh and Cleopatra 1.11 KGB 1.12 Cretan War 1.13 Thaddeus S. C. Lowe 1.14 History of Tamil Nadu 1.15 New Jersey Devils 1.16 Scottish Parliament 1.17 Vaikom Muhammad Basheer 1.18 Ahmose I 1.19 Cyclol 1.20 Austin Nichols 1.21 Banksia integrifolia 1.22 Mac OS X 1.23 Singapore Changi Airport 1.24 Serial Experiments Lain 1.25 Rocky 1.26 Gloucester County, Virginia 1.27 Make Way For Ducklings 1.28 Coldplay 1.29 Hurricane Edith (1971) 1.30 Indian Navy 1.31 Tropical Storm Bill (2003) 1.32 Mount Tambora 1.33 Óengus I of the Picts 1.34 Angelina Jolie 1.35 Holocaust 1.36 Fluke (band) 1.37 New Jersey State Constitution 1.38 Amtrak 1.39 Charles Atangana 1.40 Chalukya dynasty 1.41 Joseph W. Tkach 1.42 Music of the Lesser Antilles 1.43 Vancouver 1.44 References 1.45 Glynn Lunney 1.46 History of Solidarity second nomination 1.47 NeXT 1.48 Firefly (TV series) 1.49 Pornography in the United States 1.50 James Robert Baker 1.51 Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon 1.52 Ryan Leaf 1.53 K-os 1.54 2005 United States Grand Prix 1.55 Natural selection 1.56 Evan Mecham 1.57 Kroger Babb 1.58 Anthony Michael Hall 1.59 Randall Flagg 1.60 History of erotic depictions 1.61 Hinduism 1.62 Sydney Roosters 1.63 Local Government Commission for England (1992)

[edit] Nominations

[edit] MMORPG

It has been about a year since the last nomination and the article has been improved further. Although the article is relatively long, this is becoming an increasingly important subject (with over 15 million worldwide players of MMORPGs, according to industry estimates) that I believe justifies the length. The quality of the prose and content has improved during this time.

Previous comments are here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/MMORPG/archive1

Tarinth 14:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• object article had 5 citation needed tags in it before the FAC even started. Lacks real inline citations in general... just 4 external links used to cite facts throughout the entire article. See WP:CITE. --W.marsh 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - It isn't long at all... heck with all the markup it's only 35k! However, It's barely referenced, which is a a huge problem. Almost NOTHING is cited. In a moment, I'll go through the article and tag everything that needs a citation. Expect it to be a lot. Fieari 19:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC) -- Actually, I take it back. I won't mark it up, because almost EVERY SENTENCE requires a cite in this article, and NONE OF THEM HAVE ONE. I've used the {{unreferenced}} tag instead to cover the whole article. Also, in looking through it more closely, the prose leaves much to be desired, and though I agree that MMORPGs are an encyclopedic topic, the language used is not encyclopedic. Also: why on earth is there talk about WOW's Korean playerbase in the lead section? Why is this notable enough to be in the lead, as this is not an article about WOW in specific, but MMORPGs in general? Fieari 19:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I thought article titles weren't supposed to have abbreviations in them? Rlevse 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment MMORPG is the most commonly used form of the concept, few do people refer to a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Also, there should be some more citations in the MMORPG article... a lot more.

[edit] Siege of Malta (1565)

In my opinion this is one of the most important sieges ever to take place in the Mediterreanean history. Were it not for this siege, all of Western Europe would have become Muslim. Unfortunately few know about this event in Medieval History; therefore by nominating it for FA, others will come to appreciate it more and more. It is a pity that many Europeans waste a lot of time on unimportant things, and yet do not know their own history. I am aware of the fact that it might be too short, therefore I would appreciate it if you would edit it and help expand this article.

• NOTE: This article was not created by me, but I have recently made many significant changes to it.Keith Azzopardi 14:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: FAC are not a way to improve an article, you should consider a peer review instead. The text doesn't have a single inline citation; I think a lot of work is needed to get this to FA status. Jaqu 16:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Jaqu's advice. LuciferMorgan 16:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with above advice; suggest citing everything, then peer review, improvements, and then A-Class and FAC.

Buckshot06 19:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great Dictator

This film is nowadays considered as a classic for two main reasons:

• It starrs Charlie Chaplin, a person who brought happiness to the world in a time of war
• It is a satire of one of the most important events in modern history.

Although the film itself might proove difficult to understand at times, its climax is one that you wouldn't forget easily, especially the speech that Charlie Chaplin ends this film with. Keith Azzopardi 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article is full of "citation needed" tags. MLilburne 15:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Insufficient references, music is not even mentioned, no box office results, critical reception is too short, "analyses" is not adequate, for such a film I would expect something like this V_for_Vendetta_(film)#Themes, the DVD release is not mentioned. Jaqu 15:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bengali language

The article is well written, referenced and stable. There remaining issues should be easily fixable in response to community input. Thanks.--ppm 07:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. After a quick look it seems that everything required is present, but a copyedit may still be required. I have done a sample copyedit in the lead section, especially with respect to dash usage. Also, there are a few completely unreferenced sections. I believe the information is present in one of the general references, but needs inline addition. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support about time this baby got FA status. Per Ambuj, a copyedit is required, especially keeping consistently with Commonwealth English. Rama's arrow 12:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis naval activity in Australian waters

I believe that this article on the Axis naval operations in Australian waters during World War II meets the criteria to be considered for Featured Article status. The article has been through a peer review and has been assessed as an A-Class article by the Military History WikiProject. The article's content and structure is stable and all images used in the article are free of copyright restrictions. This is a self-nomination. --Nick Dowling 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well written, well referenced, and an informative article. Cla68 23:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Large number of sourced and is very well written and has good structure. Probably the best Australian military article. Hossen27 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• A few minor points:
  • The dates in the headings would look neater in parentheses.
  • I would replace {{main}} and {{further}} with {{details}}.
  • Can we get rid of the "See also" section? Most of the links appear to already be present, and can be just trimmed; is there any way of working the others into the text? Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Hossen. Nick has done a great job. As I have said elsewhere, I think the separate year headings "1939-41", "1942, "1943", "1944" and "1945" are unnecessary, but that is a minor quibble. Grant65 | Talk 02:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good article that is well writen and sourced. Hello32020 12:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Well written and well referenced. A minor thing: under 1943, you say: "The IJN also conducted a diversionary bombardment of a small West Australian town." Which town? Broome? — Moondyne 14:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • Per WP:LS, there should be a bold title in the lead section. The lead section does not also give some information of who the Axis is. I know that it has wikilink, but since the term is the first word of the title, it would be better to briefly explain about it.
  • There are a lot of red links. Is it difficult to create a little stub article for them? Giving links to nothing is not a good way for a reader of a FA-level article. For example, in the first section, it mainly explains about the Australia Station, but it links to nowhere.
  • I found also a mixing of two citation styles: footnotes and embedded links in the body. Please choose one, per WP:CITE.
  • Images are good, but I found they are just simply put there as decorations. Some captions are not really describing the text/paragraph/section where they are placed. One image at the bottom is really awkward of what the purpose of it.
  • Please refer again WP:MOS of how to sectioning References, External links and See also. Mixing External links inside the list of sources is not preferred.
  • Please fix References. I see some uninformative entries. For instance, only a url link information, an entry of only author and title without information of what kind of publication it is, etc. There is a preferable WP:CITET templates if editors want to use it, but it is not mandatory. Try to give enough information about the source to mantain its verifiability.
  • "A map of the Australia Station is available between pages 52 and 53 of the first volume of the Official History of the RAN in World War II." → is not a good sentence. Why don't use ordinary citing? Then the pages, publisher, etc. will be given in the References section.
  • Some jargons are needed to be briefly explained. I am baffled with the meaning of "IJN".
  • Please also reduce entries in External links. I found entries in the External links that are used already as sources. Entries in See also are also wikilinks that are not yet linked from the main article. It is not good to point to an article so many times for a reader (see Kirill comments above).

As overall, this is a good article. I only commented some technical issues above. — Indon (reply) — 18:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Democratic peace theory

Original nomination Here

Nomination by --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)

• Pro --84.113.52.244 16:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (German wiki - Tets)
• Oppose at first glance. Long list of sources appearing at the end of the article needs to be converted to inline citations. Neil916 (Talk) 17:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  My english isnt very well, but the sources appearing at the end of the article are inline citations! Take a closer look. Its called havard citation. 84.113.52.244 17:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

  You are correct, I did not notice the Harvard citation method. Neil916 (Talk) 19:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Initial glance for the inconsistency of referencing - similar to above. Yes there is harvard referencing, but there's also the wikipedia standard referencing side by side. Pick one style and stick to it -- I would definitely prefer the wikipedia standard with the "ref" style. Further review only after the referencing is consistent. Fieari 17:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Insufficient and inconsistent referencing combined with an essay tone for most of the article make it completely unworthy of being a featured article. I think DPT has been nominated before (at least I've definitely seen the article before), and it was in much better shape then. —Cuiviénen 18:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object -- this reads more as an essay than as an encyclopedic summary of mainstream and significant minority sources. There's an argumentative thread running through what should be an explanation of theory, and we're not given any context for a lot of this material; we go from an unsourced statement about Kant's as being somehow important to a quote from the U.S. President in a couple of paragraphs; without a stronger lead there's nothing to give the reader confidence that this is really giving an informative overview instead of some idiosyncratic description. Image:DP CHART V19.JPG and Image:DP BACKSIDE V 16.JPG need deleting for being higher resolution than necessary, not identifying the copyright holder, and seemingly being used solely to demonstrate that someone that some Wikipedia editor likes has published PDFs. Jkelly 23:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Finnish Civil War

This has undergone two peer reviews, two A-class review and a good article review. All things have been fixed and now I believe it meets the standards. In short, neutral article of a very emotional subject, well referenced and the writers have been able to make a comprehensive article of a subject which isn't that well known.

• Nomination and Support --Pudeo (Talk) 15:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment:
  • The lead is too long even for a very big article.
  • The inline citations should have page numbers for verifiability purposes.
• Other than that, a nice article, but the ref thing is quite severe IMHO. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 16:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, however according to WP:LEAD#Length though, 4 paragrahps are generally accepted for >30,000 mark articles. If not, I'm sure the second paragraph can be removed and/or shortened to third. And the page numbers citations, of course is was noted before but not added due with that book and note amount it would require some sitting in the library. It could be though of couse started from few books.. I don't think the citations are supposed to deal with straight "quotation", but rather to show from which book the information was written from; as WP:CITE#Page_numbers says; "When citing books and articles, provide page numbers where appropriate. Page numbers must be included in a citation that accompanies a specific quotation from, or a paraphrase or reference to, a specific passage of a book or article.". --Pudeo (Talk) 16:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Per Grafikm about the citations. The MoS may say that, but here we speak about a FA and in a FA every source must be absolutely verifiable. Let's say a reviewer has the books you mention and wants to verify your assessment. Ok? How is he going to do that, if you don't provide page numbers? By browsing the whole book? The article is obviously very very well-researched, but I don't think it should be promoted to FA status, until page numbers are provided.--Yannismarou 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Concerning the citations, I would agree that the page numbers would make the article more easily verifiable, but the fact that the article extensively cites solid, reliable print sources makes this article far better than many FAs. It satisfies the FA "factually accurate" or citation criteria 1c, full stop. But rather than concentrating on the quality of the citations, one should look at the quality as well as topic of the article. It is comprehensive, but more importantly, it covers a subject that is important in the world view but difficult to find in an English encyclopaedia. Having seen, IMHO, fancruft articles that are getting recognised because they at least give page-numbers in their citations, I feel that not giving FA for this quality article is a true injustice. --RelHistBuff 17:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your comments about the printed sources. It is something I repeat all the time. But, for my part, I still believe that we should not apply double standards in different FACs. I have seen this request for page numbers repeated by many reviewers in many FACs, and all of these times the problem was fixed and page numbers were provided. And as you can see I did not object, I just commented. If I wanted "not to give FA" to this article and if I did not recognize its quality, I would have objected. I just say that I cannot support an article with no page numbers in more than 50 inline citations! Is it so difficult the page numbers to be added?! I remember myself in university that whenever I had references in any kind of essays I had written, I always had to put pages! Otherwise, my references were not accepted! For me, the criterion of verifiability is not fully satisfied, because, when I have references citing books without pages, I don't know where to search in order to verify an assessment, full stop!--Yannismarou 21:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forth

• Previous nominations: 4 June 2006, 22 June 2006.

Self-nom. Previous nomination failed due to lack of inline references; if this is still a concern I would like some guidance on what needs to be referenced. --Ideogram 13:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:
  • Forth is a programming language, but why its main image is a picture of a person? It's misleading, though he is the inventor.

It is hard to find a picture related to a programming language, since it is not a physical object. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • External links section has too many items. It has unencyclopaedic statements: excellent, easy to learn, etc., that may be suspected as spam links. Use some of them as sources, or remove unecessary external links. I found one link to a webring (?). Please read again WP:EL, and WP is not a directory.

Fixed. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Further copyediting is still needed. Perhaps, ask somebody who does not familiar with the subject. I randomly picked some sentences below:
    • Some Forth versions (especially early ones) compile threaded code, but many implementations today generate optimized machine code like other language compilers. → some? many? how many is exactly?

It is not clear to me that exact numbers here are available, desirable, or even possible. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Forth is so named because "[t]he file holding the interpreter was labeled FORTH, for 4th (next) generation software - but the operating system restricted file names to 5 characters." → I don't understand the meaning of brackets "[t]".

Brackets in a quote are a standard notation indicating a change to text from the original to make it fit the surrounding context. In this instance I would assume the "t" in the original quote is capitalized. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • ...not a 4GL as we understand the term today. → we? who is we? Also avoid terms today, because it is inexact in the future.

Fixed. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Programming is done by extending the language with words (the term used for Forth subroutines), which become part of the language once defined. → Honestly, I don't understand at all, although I am a programmer.

I have rewritten this; please read it and see if it is clearer. --Ideogram 17:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • etc.
  • The article is still missing history of the subject.
  • The prose has too many specific jargons that non-specialist readers will get difficulty to learn the subject. Please take a look at other technical featured articles. There is none yet for programming language, but maybe you can compare the article with HTTP cookie.

— Indon (reply) — 16:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

I nominated this article for this is definitely alright and it seems that corrections have been already made earlier. --- Kevin Ray 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose has external jumps and citation needed tags. Refs are not formatted properly. Rlevse 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — too early. The article was submitted to FAC and PR at the same time. Wait for PR first, then improve the article and then submit here. — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Shouldn't be on peer review and fac at the same time. After improving the article through peer review, then it could possibly be submitted to fac. Hello32020 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pharaoh and Cleopatra

Nominated for Featured Article Status based upon a recent expansion where the article was tripeled in detail and a large amount of information and pictures added. I might have missed something, but the article appears to meet the criteria for an FAC and is so nominated. -Husnock 10:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose too many bullets and tables, no inline cites. Rlevse 12:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can possibly do something about adding inline citations but I am at a loss at how to address "too many bullets and tables" since they contain information pertianing to the topic. What is your suggested course of correction to mkae this actionable? -Husnock 13:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See the FA Final Fantasy VII on how to make a game a FA. FAs should contain brilliant prose, not a bunch of tables and lists. Rlevse 13:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'd say there isn't any reliable sources provided at all, and fair use images are not accounted for with rationale. - Mailer Diablo 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — heavy lists. Refer to WP:PR first. — Indon (reply) — 16:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] KGB

Very concise and encycolpedic in nature. Obeattie

• OPPOSE: Opening section is far too long and there are vry few pictures throughout the article. -Husnock 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - references, only four for the entire artcile on a subject so intertwined withworld affairs for 40 years. also not one inline cite. Lead almost constitutes an article by its self, think theres alot more information not included. Daughter articles, organisation structure and history 1 article, external(west) activities another article, internal activities another. This one of those topics that you should have enough information to "go to town with". Have you read the book "Spy catcher" by peter wright? published late 80's theres a lot of information on KGB's agent within Uk government. There not even a mention of "Hollywood" perceptions and type castings. Gnangarra 12:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - Lead section is too long, there is a deleted image, no inline citations. Please refer to WP:PR first. — Indon (reply) — 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cretan War

A war sandwhiched between two more famous war and with minimal sources. I have worked on this article for about 5 months now and I think it is of FA quality. Has had a military history peer review, a HOG peer review, a GA peer review and a general peer review. Kyriakos 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. (I did a little bit of work on this recently.) Very well done article on a tough topic. --Robth^Talk 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good all around (after five A-Class reviews! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 00:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is far too verbose eg:

"The Macedonians then attacked the town of Thyatira and, after capturing it, advanced to the plain of Thebe, which they supposed would have the richest spoils.[13] Philip was disappointed in this hope, however, as his plundering there proved less fruitful than anticipated."

The above can be written in half the words:

After the Macedonians captured Thyatira, they advanced to plunder the plain of Thebe, but the booty proved less fruitful than anticipated.

The article could easily be halved in size without losing any detail.

There are spelling, typo and grammar mistakes.

The info box picture is in French! What’s the justification for the second picture? Raymond Palmer 05:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be pointed out, though, that artificially terse writing can be as unpleasant to read as the arificially verbose. The article is not overly long, per se, and does not need to be shortened regardless of the cost; any trimming of the text should thus be done carefully, to avoid losing valuable detail. Kirill Lokshin 05:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The map in the infobox was the best I could find and I also edited the article it a bit. Kyriakos 05:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Kyriakos. If you would like me to adapt the picture using Paint Shop Pro, so its in English, I will do so tomorrow. Raymond Palmer 05:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd greatly appreciate that. I also went through the article with spell check and got rid of most of the spelling mistakes. Kyriakos 05:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support and minor comment. Two of the citations do not have page numbers, but I think it is easy to fix that. Very nice article and worked in detail. I had reviewed the article in the past and did some minor minor copy-edit in the lead.--Yannismarou 09:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Cla68 12:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It would be nice if Image:Philip V Macedonia.png were recreated in English, though obviously not necessary. As the main image for the article, though, it's a bit odd to have a French-language map. —Cuiviénen 17:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on it ATM Raymond Palmer 18:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thaddeus S. C. Lowe

This article is self-nominated. It has undergone Peer Review and has received only the best of comments from other editors including a Barnstar to Magi Media--Magi Media 15:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to align the article with the comments made about the introduction, I have rewritten it with what I hope is better grammatical construct. Thank you everyone for your gracious input.--Magi Media 05:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Object lead is way too long and has too many details. Should be 3 paras in this case. See WP:Lead. Rlevse 16:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: The lead has been pared and reduced to 3 paras.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This is an interesting article that would be a good addtion to the featured articles. It is well written with a tone that is in keeping with the subject and period and is well researched. The lead is five paragraphs as opposed to three, but I feel that it fits the intent of the lead as being a good "executive summary" of the article. The article is one that leads me to want to read more about the subject, which I feel is also a sign of a featured article. Nightngle 17:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Thank you--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object until the leas is fixed per Rlevse and all the paragraphs are properly cited.--Yannismarou 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

re: citations for lead paragraphs are well noted in the body which restates in more detail the leads.--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

All the paragraphs of the article I mean. For instance, in "Mount Lowe Railway" there are two uncited paragraphs. And I think that we do not cite headings. Anyway, I don't want to be unfair. I see the lead is better. So, I turn my vote to neutral until the article is properly referenced.--Yannismarou 09:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of style problems. Here are some of the obvious ones:
  • birthday and date of death should come immediately after name

re: repaired--Magi Media 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • birthday and date of death should not include place of birth, place of death, place of interment or "b." abbreviation.

re: all of this info is in the INFOBOX!

• • first sentence is not a sentence and does not have ending punctuation, needs to be fixed

re: fixed!

• • introduction is too long

re: shortened!

• • sentence fragments should not end in periods (see Infobox especially)

re: the dots are removed!

• • there are no metric conversions for distances

re: distances and weights converted.

• • linking directly to an image in the See also section is unorthodoxed. what is the image from the census for? if it's a reference, list it under references (and link to the image description page rather than the image itself). Otherwise I would remove it.

re: That was someone else's idea. It is removed.

Kaldari 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for those helpful comments--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object, I honestly don't like the intro, very inconsistent.--Seadog ^♪ 02:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Seadog! Thou cutst me to the quick. Are you and Nightngle reading the same article? I have made some revisions.--Magi Media 03:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your first sentence isn't complete. It should flow grammatically like a normal sentence. Aside from that: put the dates in the intro; even if you think it's redundant with the infobox, it's simply stylistic convention for bio articles. Also, you've got a cite number in one of your section titles; by all means use the ref, but place it in the main text. Everyking 10:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re:Someone fixed the lead sentence, and I am indebted... I fixed the citation--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment leads should summarize the article and if properly written, in many cases won't need a citation in the lead. Rlevse 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: I agree, but does my rewrite qualify?--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There should be no use of ibid in the footnotes. If a new footnote is added then ibid will no longer refer to the right footnote.--Peter Andersen 16:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

re: Ibids are out!--Magi Media 02:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Poorly written. Take the opening:

Lowe lived a life that was full of claims-to-fame. Born of pioneer farm boy stock, Lowe showed an initial interest in meteorology with his avid study of the winds and cloud directions. He initially recognized the strong easterly high altitude wind which sparked an interest to fly in it. As an older teenager, Lowe became fascinated with the properties of lighter-than-air gases, in particular, hydrogen. By age 21 he found himself taking up amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning. As a chemistry lecturer and balloon ride conductor he was able to put enough money together for a formal education thus furthering his studies in chemistry, meteorology, and aviation. By the late 1850's he was well known for his scientific academia and balloon building which included a plan for a transatlantic flight via the high lofting winds (the Jet Stream).

• Why is "claim to fame" in italic and hyphenated? Then we have another triple bunger shortly after.
• "Farmboy"—not sure I like the genetic angle in the first clause; a farmboy's a farmboy. Might raise hackles about African-American boys forced to live on farms, too.
• "Initial" twice.
• "sparked an interest"— "sparked his interest"?
• "he found himself taking up"—bit laboured; why not just "he took up"?
• "1850's"—Only the NY Times persists with this illogical apostrophe.
• "amateur aviation, which at the time was ballooning." "Ballooning" is ambiguous and/or ungrammatical here. Could mean "expanding rapidly", or that amateur aviation centred on ballooning.
• "well-known"
• "his scientific academia"—What does that mean? And the "plan"—does that refer back to both items or just "balloon building".

Muddled. Tony 09:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Tamil Nadu

Self nom. This article has gone through a peer review. I think this article is a concise and comprehensive account of the long history of the state of Tamil Nadu and documents its rich political and cultural history. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 03:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support I've been watching this article during the FA drive and feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it's the best single resource on this subject available in the web. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 05:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Mandatory disclosure: I did some copyediting of the article.

• SupportObject Very good except the web based footnotes are highly inconsisent. Strongly suggest converting them to cite php (cite web) format and being consistent (word name for link, access date, publisher, author if known, etc). Rlevse 16:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  The web footnotes have been standardised not now. I have also standardised the citation of the author's name for some of the repeatedly cited books. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  I think Parthi meant "now" and not "not" above. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 06:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Oops again. I think I have typing dyslexia! Thanks Sundar! - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 07:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Web footnotes are better, but not there. All web pages have a publisher. For example, fn 20 should have a "publisher = TamilNation.org" parameter. Ditto for several others.Rlevse 13:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have now added the publisher info for all the web citations. The offline citations all have the full information in the Reference section. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. citation problems appear to have been worked out. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Please modify the footnotes as suggested by Rlevse. The size of the article is big. Can it be condensed to some extent? Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations have been fixed. The size of the article reflects its scope. It is in summary style and cannot to easily condenced further. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of the footnotes (such as 36 and 66; there are others) still have issues with being incomplete. There's also a likely typo in footnote 30. The problems are minor, but they're still there. —Cuiviénen 23:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! missed them. These three issues are now fixed. Pls tell me if I've missed any more. Thanks Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 23:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very good article, adheres to standards very well, however, someone could consider condensing it, and then merging it with the main Tamil Nadu page... -HuBmaN!!!! 12:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  If I understand you correct, you want a summary of this article to be added in the ==History== section of Tamil Nadu article. Am I right about that? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 12:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

  Merging it would be absurd, so I hope that's what he meant. —Cuiviénen 18:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Sundar. Rama's arrow 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support --Blacksun 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A well-written article, which provides a good overview of the key points in the region's history. I'll also add that the footnotes show that it's used the standard reference books on the topic as well as more specialised material on specific issues, which really makes it one of the best-sourced articles on Indian history on :en. -- Arvind 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent prose, well-reference. Well done! :) - Mailer Diablo 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment before objecting. I don't want to object here, but there are obvious citing deficiencies. In "Age of empires (600 - 1300)" most sub-sections are undercited or not cited at all and in the next section "European colonization" there are similar problems. The fact that there are other main articles for most of these sub-sections does not mean that we shouldn't properly cite them. I think that the citations should be added before this article becomes FA.--Yannismarou 18:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I will add the citations today. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks much better right now. Now, if you also properly cite "Anglo French Conflicts", you'll have an unconditional support from me!--Yannismarou 09:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: It covers the topic in a comprehensive and accurate way. --Bhadani 12:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey Devils

This article has come a very long way since I last nominated it. It has passed GA-status and now contains everything a featured article should have, including almost 50 sources and lots of good stuff that the Patriots and Bears articles have incorporated in them. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. --Sportskido8 22:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support As a New Jerseyan and a sports fanatic (though I'm not too big on hockey), I was ready to critique this one somewhat harshly. However, I can't find any real problems. There's a bit of enencyclopedic prose in places (I made one correction myself), but everything is very well-sourced, all of the images are illustrative and contain fair-use rationale, the lead is good, the article is broken down into sections in an excellent fashion, the prose is generally fine (and the writing is completely neutral), and the article is extremely comprehensive. My only genuine concern is that there are too many red links, especially for the owner, who does not (but should) have his own article. -- Kicking222 22:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You motivated me to finally start Vanderbeek's article. I also created stubs for the two redlinked head coaches. There's only one redlink left in the article, and that's a relatively non-notable player. – flamurai (t) 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Man, that stub is so good, it almost persuaded me to add "strong" to my "support". -- Kicking222 03:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As someone who's done some work on this page with Sportskido8, I'm happy to see it come this far. Everything looks as it should, and perhaps we can start work on another hockey team page once this one is done (methinks the Original Six teams would do well to have extensive articles). Anthony Hit me up... 02:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support... but could use a bit of help with the overall flow. I did fix a couple of sentences but the prose isn't exactly brilliant. Still, impressive article with lots of nice stuff without being overly detailed. One thing that should be mentioned (although one would probably need a reference) is that Lemaire's implementation of the trap was so successful in New Jersey that the whole league started to play it. Which also helps explain why they were viewed as the source of all evil in the NHL at some point. Also, one could perhaps point out that Lamoriello is extremely respected within the league. Again, there's an issue of finding a good reference but his reputation in hockey is very very good. (And I'm not a Devils fan). Pascal.Tesson 05:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I dont know that much about the topic but the layout, flow, and general apperance of the article is beyonf reproach. -Husnock 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Although I am a Ducks fans. It's still nice to see such an excellent article on an Ice Hockey team. Well Done.--Skully Collins ^Edits 15:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, noting that the article has been very extensively referenced. - Mailer Diablo 15:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very comprehensive, beyond that of a good article. Hello32020 20:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is pretty good, but I think can be more comprehensive (such as sports/financial side of things). Despite the Devils successes on the ice, it seems their attendance is rather poor. [1] What is the value of the franchise? Is the owner turning a profit with the team now? How much revenue is the team getting each year? How about player salaries? Television deals? Perhaps, we need some more details on the financing of the Newark Arena? These are some aspects that I think can be covered better. --Aude (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Devils used to be the Patrick Division, right? --Aude (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple more things I can think of that deserve mention...
    • I recall after the Devils won the Stanley Cup in 1995, there was a bitter dispute between the Devils' owner and the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority over the team's lease at the Brendan Byrne Arena. McMullen made serious threats to relocate the team to Nashville.
    • ~1997/98, McMullen put forth plans to build a new arena in Hoboken.
  • I remember these were in the newspapers a lot back then, so if anyone has access to any newspaper archive database/service, I think that would be a good place to look. Some discussion of this aspect of the NJ Devils franchise history, I think, would add a lot to the article. --Aude (talk) 01:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scottish Parliament

Self nomination. I believe it is as comprehensive as it can be, well referenced and stable. Has been through peer review with no major problems. Thanks Globaltraveller 15:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Insufficient inline citations. There are huge large swaths of text here without a single reference. Think of the poor reasearcher... he can't reference wikipedia itself, so he needs to reference what we reference. But if we don't specify where we got the information, he can't do that at all, and wikipedia becomes far less useful. Fieari 17:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, but it would be courteous if you could go through the article and flag up all the places where you think a reference is needed using {{cite needed}}. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have added a significant number of additional citations to the article. Thanks Globaltraveller 20:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Text is great. Large number of publicity photos are probably fine, status of Image:GeorgeReidSNP.jpeg needs to be resolved. Image:Edinburgh Scottish Parliament01 2006-04-29.jpg needs to be rotated to remove tilt (hint: the buildings have no tilt in reality), or replaced with one of the many images in commons:Category:Scottish Parliament. If a temperature and brightness increase were applied to Image:Scottish Parliament.jpg, it might be suitable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Getting images for this article has been very difficult. There are plenty of building photographs on Wikicommons but either way they belong on the Scottish Parliament Building article rather than repeated here, ad nauseum. I'm not sure there is a great deal I can do about the status of the George Reid photograph. As I'm sure you'll appreciate there are no free use images of him. The only way to rectify this situation is to obtain a fair use image (probably from the parliament website), which I will try - and I'll see what I can do about the photograph of the building - even if it is just a photograph of a part of the building. Thanks for your comments Globaltraveller 11:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Some weird wikilink issues among other things:
  • Members are elected for 4 year terms... -> "four year terms"
  • 'Scotland during the late 1960's[8] fueled demands Ugly placement of that citation...can it go at the end?
  • Does "oil" really need a wikilink?
  • ...the resulting It's Scotland's oil campaign of the Scottish National Party (SNP) resulted in..
  • in part because the government of the United Kingdom was controlled Why is "United Kingdom" wikilinked here when it was already wikilinked two paragraphs above?
  • a referendum of the Scottish electorate Again, "referendum" is already wilinked two paragraphs before.
  • A few full dates are not wikilinked.
  • which is made from silver and inlaid with gold panned Why are silver and gold wikilinked?
  • including £100 million spent on bronze cladding Why is bronze wikilinked here?
• A scan of the blue wikilinks of the entire article might be helpful. Just look for odd links that are not relevant to the context of the article. Gzkn 02:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I've amended the specific issues you've raised. I've also removed some other duplicate wikilinks and redundant ones as well. Thanks Globaltraveller 11:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaikom Muhammad Basheer

Nomination seemed to be incomplete, so I let myself finish it. --Ouro 15:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the article, I am wondering if it is FA ready/if the nomination was in good faith or just for kicks. No references, prose problems and only one photo. --Ouro 15:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Should be referred to peer review. Sloan21 15:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Clearly not ready yet. Would probably fail even the good article criteria right now. Still, good potential with some extra weeks of work. Pascal.Tesson 18:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above, not even one ref, lead too short, etc. Rm per WP:SNOW. Rlevse 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmose I

Ahmose I has been under construction for several months now and is basically complete. Ahmose I is not the world's most well attested pharaoh, and this page contains basically everything of note about him. It is more exhaustive than any topical paper encyclopedia, from Shaw's "Dictionary of Ancient Egypt" to Redford's three volume monstrosity. Certain places are vague, but with egyptology that is the nature of the beast. His dates, his campaigns, his sucession, his family -- all these things are not perfectly understood, so effort was made to include the major reconstructions on each point. All in all, anything wrong with this article is of a minor blemish sort, and those kinds of objections can be dealt with quickly here. Thanatosimii 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article. A few minor points that I think can be improved, though:
  • The alignment of the two hatnotes should be identical.
  • I'd use {{details}} instead of {{further}}.
  • Drop {{cquote}} in favor of regular blockquote formatting, perhaps?
  • The page number should always be in the same place from citation to citation; at the moment, it moves around quite a bit. Kirill Lokshin 01:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd thought of the quote bit too, the problem being that I don't know exactly how to do that from a technical standpoint. I'm getting on the page numbers now. Thanatosimii 03:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Just enclose the quote in <blockquote></blockquote> tags instead of the template. Kirill Lokshin 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, done that Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the hatnotes. — Editor at Large^(speak) 19:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent! Some comments:
  • During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region and restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan. IMO, this sounds better: "During his reign he completed the conquest and expulsion of the Hyksos from the delta region, restored Theban rule over the whole of Egypt, and successfully reasserted Egyptian power in its formerly subject territories of Nubia and Canaan."
  • as his much-wounded mummy gruesomely suggests <-- nice :)
  • Might want to wikilink "regnal year". Also "stele" in the caption and the first instance of "stelae" in the text.
  • Despite this, it is interesting to note that only three statuary images... I generally advise staying away from phrases like "it is interesting to note that", as they are almost always superfluous.
  • ...it is quite likely that it was one of his subjects who developed the craft. Source?
  • In Upper Egypt he built at the temple of Amun at Karnak and the temple of Monthu at Armant. Is it "built at the temple" or just "built the temple"?
  • The city of Thebes became the capital for the whole of Egypt. Does this mean it became the capital under Ahmose's reign? If so, might want to make it more explicit ("Under Ahmose's reign, the city of Thebes became...").
  • This jumped out at me: "believed to be monuments to the kings who built them rather than their tombs. Ahmose's pyramid is like these cenotaphs, but because it has a mortuary temple, some believe that in this case it was built as a tomb.[38] However, the pyramid is believed to have had no interior or subterranean rooms; this has led other Egyptologists to believe that it is a cenotaph"
  • Ahmose I's mummy was discovered in the Deir el-Bahri Cache above the Mortuary Temple of Hatshepsut, revealed in 1881 Kind of awkward and ambiguous. "...Hatshepsut, which was revealed in 1881" might be better.
  • Finally, there is the fact that Ahmose's wife... --> "Finally, Ahmose's wife..."
  • Overall, great work! Well researched, well written, and a very interesting article. Gzkn 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have incorporated/changed the text thanks to Gzkn's keen editorial eye. Thanatosimii: The only bit I didn't chage/update was reference wanted for the assertion that the craft of glassmaking may have been invented during Ahmose's reign (point #5, above). I would guess that the same reference provided for the previous sentence would apply, but I don't have that book and didn't want to leap to that conclusion. Captmondo 14:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it is the same source. I put the same citation on that sentance too now. Thanatosimii 15:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes look great...except for: The fact that Ahmose's wife, Ahmose Nefertari, was called both "King's Great Wife" and "King's Mother" in two stelae which were set up at the limestone quarries of Ma`sara in Ahmose's 22nd year. <-- incomplete sentence. Oops! My recommendation is to get rid of "The fact that"...see Strunk and White. :)Gzkn 01:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"The fact that" duly removed. Thanks again. Captmondo 14:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well researched and using recent sources. I will come back with any comments that I have, but I want to clearly support before making them. Geogre 13:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Its good to read a well written article; writing on this period must be like constructing a jigsaw puzzle with half the pieces missing.

A few typos:

Centre and center – two different spellings used

Under the heading Art and monumental constructions:

The art during of Ahmose I's reign harkened

Under the heading Succession:

wouldn't should be would not

Lead – should be led

Good work Raymond Palmer 17:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

These issues have now been adressed. Thanatosimii 18:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I caught the "during of" that Thanatosimii missed (he focused instead on the slightly archaic "harkening", replacing it with "was similar to") and I removed the superflous "of". Thanatosimii has taken care of everything else. Captmondo 18:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoops.. I can't believe I missed that. Ah well, it's fixed now. Thanatosimii 18:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very intresting article. The prose issues above appear to have been dealt with. - Tutmosis 19:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, interesting article. One minor suggestion - have a separate Notes and References headline, with the latter listing all the major reference work, so that interested parties dont have to hunt through all the footnotes to see what books they should consider reading. Abel29a 02:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just checking: would the example at the bottom of Pericles be a good model? Am not sure I can divide things evenly into Primary and Secondary sources (I think most are primary). Just looking for a good model, as the last time I did an FA submission (Delrina, some time ago), I suspect this type of referencing format wasn't available. Captmondo 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pericles article illustrates what I mean, but you wouldnt necessarily have to divide them into primary and secondary. If they are all primary just list them all together under references. Then again most FA articles recently uses the method already used in this article, but personally I find it easier to see with a glance what references are used, instead of having to read all the notes. This FA illustrates how I prefer it Kochi_(India). Abel29a 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think it better to have the bibliographical information for only the cited books in such a section, or should we compile a list of works that ought to be consulted for further reading, although were not of use in composing this particular article? Thanatosimii 03:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Have compiled a separate "References" section, and re-titled the previous section to "Notes". I think this is sufficient for FA purposes, and I leave it to Thanatosimii if he would like to add a purely optional "Further References" section. Captmondo 10:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah excellent. It's much more accesible now. A "further reading" section would be nice for those wishing to delve even deeper into the matter, but it certainly isnt required. Abel29a 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very well written and comprehensive. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellent article (although the Temple of Montu at Armant is still cited as a major monument in the infobox without being mentioned at all in the article). Yomangani^talk 00:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we just found a missing slash in a "</ref>" which was hiding that reference, along with two other paragraphs. Whoops. Thanatosimii 03:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. One of the best articles on Wikipedia. Beit Or 20:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclol

Self-nomination. The cyclol model was a historically important early model of protein structure. Although ultimately proven incorrect by experiment, several elements were eventually verified; most importantly, cyclol reactions are a key element of several types of alkaloids, such as the ergopeptides (which happen to be related to LSD). The cyclol model is also an excellent illustration of the scientific method. The references are thorough and I hope that you'll find the text interesting and well-written. Thanks for your comments and suggestions for improving the article! Willow 17:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looks very good, but before I support, I have one question: shouldn't the article be at Cyclol hypothesis rather than Cyclol? —Cuiviénen 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hi, I wondered about that as well; but I eventually chose the more general name, cyclol, which refers to a historical protein model, a chemical reaction and a class of chemical compounds such as ergotamine. Given how interrelated they are, it didn't seem helpful to make separate articles for those topics, so I put them together under a common title. Hoping that this answers your question, Willow 18:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• That's fair. In that case, I can support this well-written and excellently sourced article. —Cuiviénen 03:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support excellent article - even more so given that it didn't exist at all until a couple of months ago and was almost _{nope, actually the occasional others were just bots, sorry :)} entirely written by Willow. I think I already got all the nitpicks out my system - except the minor comment that "excellent illustration of the scientific method" might be a bit editorializing. Opabinia regalis 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Opabinia! The article is really the child of several editors, whose thoughtful suggestions and contributions have helped her grow up: you of course, the kind folks at the Chemistry WikiProject such as Wim van Dorst and Physchim62, and our own FA Zen master Tim Vickers. Thanks, all!

I know what you mean about flirting with editorializing adjectives like "excellent". However, I do think it's verifiable that the history of the cyclol model illustrates how the scientific method works, and does so in an unusually clear way on a fundamental topic (protein structure). So it doesn't seem a stretch to describe it as "excellent". Willow 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object with regret, as it is mostly an excellent article. However I feel that the section on the "scientific method" is Popperian PoV-pushing... It needs to be rewritten, with reference not only to the view of Karl Popper but also to those of other philosophers of science such as (my fave') Imre Lakatos. I will, of course, try to help out here, as I entirely sympathize with Willow when he/she says that it isn't an easy topic! Physchim62 15:30, 10:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried re-writing this to make it an example of falsifiability, rather than the scientific method in general. By being more specific here it removes the implication that falsifiability is the only part of the scientific method (which I see as probably true, but is my own POV). See what you think. TimVickers 17:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel regret, Physchim62, about expressing your true opinion, since no doubt others will think likewise; whatever may happen in science, Wikipedia articles certainly improve from harmonizing different perspectives and reaching consensus. I can honestly say, though, that I'm not consciously pushing a Popperian PoV since I've never read even one word of his work, nor any of Imre Lakatos. The method of considering multiple theories and eliminating the false ones seems much older than the 20^th century, wouldn't you agree? I seem to recall reading it in works by Rene Descartes, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton; even Aristotle begins many of his works by incinerating earlier theories and sifting the diamonds from the ashes (right after he defines his terminology!). With all due respect to Popper and Lakatos, I think that this article — which is fundamentally about the history of biochemistry — wouldn't be improved by a discussion of the philosophy of the scientific method. Perhaps we can find a compromise? Willow 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I re-wrote it a bit Willow, and this may have addressed the concern, but I'm not sure. TimVickers 19:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed a half-finished proposal on the talk page for illustration purposes. All comments welcome. Physchim62 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austin Nichols

I have submitted to both peer review and Biography peer review, and I think it's time to elevate it. To pre-empt already points raised: No, I cannot add any more to this article with getting into the realms of WP:OR, besides which, there are shorter articles than this one; and No, I cannot acquire a free image of him. I have contacted his agents but no reply, and the fansite doesn't have any images they can give. Besides that, it's a great article! Dev920 15:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support since I took care of some prose problems. I will though take your word that nothing can be added to this article since it feels very short. - Tutmosis 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou. My prosewriting still sucks, but I'm starting to improve I think. It's not that I don't want to add to the article, it's that I can't find any more information for him (having gone through the first ten pages of his google search and austinnicholsfan.com with a fine tooth comb). Dev920 (Mind voting here?) 07:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I contributed to the peer review and think it meets all the criteria now. Trebor 07:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support, because it is short. But it is nice.--Yannismarou 09:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Qjuad 10:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support, per above. The articles is short but informative.--Palestine48 09:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support but suggest adding a few more pics. Good job! --Aminz 11:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice one, have let myself correct a the and an an here and there. Bit short though, and two or three extra photos (that, I'd say, would not be screenshots from movies or shows) would not hurt (but if you say you tried and came up empty then the matter's closed). --Ouro 14:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I allowed to do that under fair use? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean, whether you can use fair use images to illustrate an article? If they have a good rationale to use them and are not used excessively, yes (I believe), although it's not the best solution. See Ghirla's and follow-up comments at the Angelina Jolie FAC discussion and Wikipedia:Fair use. --Ouro 19:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. The only place that seems best to put a photo without seeming like the place is being cluttered is in the personal section: would this photo, of Austin with Jake Gyllenhaal at the Casanova film premiere, be good? I was thinking this one because it covers two of the personal life paragraphs, friendship with Jake and interest in films. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 19:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you ask me, although it's a shame his face is not shown clearly, and this kinda reduces the image's value. Please don't rely solely on my judgement in this matter. --Ouro 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Would this one be better? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say yes, it would. --Ouro 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added it: does it look alright? Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not really :) What would you think about moving at least one of the last two images to the right (looks nicer when the images are not bound to one margin but alternate). Also, the right table (with his television roles) overlaps with the references, but I do not know how to fix this (I use Firefox at 1024x768 for your reference). Perhaps if you switched the tables around so that the longer one is on the left would help.

I'd also suggest consulting a copyright status expert on the images (have only now looked at them closely), there seems to be a dispute as to the fair use status of one of them. This might not be acceptable in an FA. --Ouro 07:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I hav rearranged the images. The dispute was that the editor concerned felt that a free image could be found and thus I couldn't use AustinNichols.JPG. Hoever, I pointed out on her talkpage that I had tried and failed to acquire an image, and she dropped it. I am now using a different computer and can see your problem with the tables, but I have tried swapping them and that doesn't work. I don't know what to do now. Dev920 (Please peer review here.) 10:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article now. I feel articles like this one, where information on the the subject matter is limited because in this case he`s a young actor who hasnt found his breakout roll yet and hasnt had much media exposure, should be considered for featured article because at this moment in time I doubt you`ll find a better biography of Nichols on the net. I dont think the article could say much more until Nichols does something else.Stevenscollege 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banksia integrifolia

A comprehensive and well-written article on an important Australian tree. I can't see any way to improve it. WP:BANKSIA self-nom. Hesperian 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support as co-nominator. Hesperian 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator Gnangarra 04:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've looked the article over, and am deeply impressed by its depth of coverage. Wouldn't have thought that there'd be so much to say about a species of tree that it would warrant a sub-article on the taxonomy alone. Well referenced, well written. Support. Fieari 04:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support as co-nominator. I feel it fulfils all criteria. The article has been thoroughyl analysed and is comprehensive and fulfils wiki-style critera that I can see.Cas Liber 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The words gnarlier and rangy caught my eye as they sounded a bit un-encyclopaedic at first but I've checked my dictionaries and see that I was wrong yet again. A very nice piece of work worthy of any encyclopaedia. — Moondyne 05:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; looks great to me, though I know nothing of plants. The leading sentence of the 2nd paragraph of the lead is a bit awkward to me, however. I assume that the comma is necessary between "published" and "by" (that is, that others besides Linnaeus published the other three of the "first four"), so I'm not exactly sure what can be done about it. If there's a synonym for "published", that could be used effectively to reorganize the sentence to something like this: "...collected by Sir Joseph Banks in 1770, and, published in 1782 Carolus Linnaeus the Younger, was one of the first four species to be <insert synonym of published here>." Not a big deal; just something that could stand an improvement. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 06:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it's better now. What do you think? Hesperian 06:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Excellent. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 16:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead seems weak and disjointed, with oddities like: "Banksia integrifolia, commonly known as Coast Banksia, is a species of tree in the plant genus Banksia." - Do we really need to spell out the meaning of Binomial nomenclature in the first sentence? Shouldn't we be talking about the plant itself? I'd lose it or add it to the later section about Linnaeus. There's other instances of poor phrasing as well: "Because of its wide range, it would have had a name in a number of indigenous languages; for example, it was known as Birrna in the language of the Gunai people of Gippsland." - don't say "would have" about known facts. It *had* a name in a number of indigenous languages.

The section beginning "B. integrifolia's placement within Banksia may be summarised as follows:" would look a lot better as a side box, and, on the whole, it just needs another copyedit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

response the use of would have is more correct as the following sentence in the article states that -- Unfortunately, most indigenous names are now lost... Gnangarra 10:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer "had", though. less weasely, and the explanation is fast enough. Adam Cuerden ^talk 11:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Adam, four points: (1) I agree with your comment re: redundancy in the first sentence, and will address it. (2) I agree with Gnangarra that "would have" is more appropriate, as it correctly indicates that our sources are largely speculating on this point. (3) I tried the sidebox idea when we took Banksia brownii through FA, and it didn't look as good as i thought it would. (4) Tony1 has undertaken to give this another copyedit as soon as he can find the time. Hesperian 12:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Weak Support, then. I probably should have said "Weak Oppose" anyway - it IS a very good article, just seemed to need a couple tweaks. I've changed the names section a bit - I think the major problem was that a specific example was given in a place where it made the rest of the commentary seem odd. With it removed, it works. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Support: All issues addressed. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support meets all requirements. The subject is very well explained.--cj | talk 13:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - looks good to me. Trebor 17:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent and comprehensive article. - Mailer Diablo 18:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, an excellent, well written, comprehensive article --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A fantastic article from a fantastic group of editors in Wikipedia:Wiki project Banksia Todd661 11:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. How many Banksias are left to do? Can we have some other plants, too? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• there are 76 species of Banksia, only Banksia brownii is FA, so including this nomination theres 75 species still to go. Then there are the other taxonomical levels, botanist, illistraters, publications etc so about 100 articles. Gnangarra 00:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - excellently written and researched article. It is informative, even to a botany novice like me. I never knew there was so much to know about Banksias! Well done. JROBBO 03:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X

This article is really well writen, comprehensive. Describes the most important things related to Mac OS X. There is also a 'Criticisms' section; the article shorty describes Mac OS X versions (and there are articles about them that have more content related to specific version); it cites it references. It meets all the requirements written on Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, so I proposed it. Of course, I support the nomination. --Emx 22:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm listing this nomination on the main WP:FAC page (this page was not included). — Miles (Talk) 01:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. In the Jaguar section, there's the following statement:

  Some consider version 10.2, or Jaguar, the "first good release" of Mac OS X.

  Who made that statement? Is it relevant? Isn't it a bit too weaselly? Titoxd^(?!?) 01:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Looking deeper at the article, it's only the tip of the iceberg. Let's have a look at the entire article, section by section:
  • Lede: I guess it is ok.
  • History: I found this section to be lacking substance. No release dates of versions, no sales figures, just a lot of discussion about Steve Jobs's role in NeXT and Apple. Which wouldn't be a bad thing if it were written correctly:
    • Mac OS X is based on the Mach kernel and the BSD implementation of Unix, which were incorporated into NEXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company after he left Apple in 1985.[1] - rewrite: two sentences mushed into one, loses clarity
    • Jobs was re-hired, and later returned to the leadership of the company, shepherding the transformation of the programmer-friendly OPENSTEP into a system that would be welcomed by Apple's primary market of home users and creative professionals, as a project known as Rhapsody. - same problem here, with the Rhapsody clause. And how about a reference?
    • Mac OS X has evolved through its successive versions - what is that supposed to mean?
  • Description: here's some issues here as well:
    • On top of this core, Apple designed and developed a number of proprietary components including the Aqua themed Quartz Compositor and the Macintosh Finder user interface shell. - grammar, hyphenation problems
    • Wikilink Unix-like operating system (introduced in the lede, I know, but by the time you get here, you have scrolled down two pages).
    • Pre-emptive multitasking and memory protection, for example, improved the ability of the operating system to run multiple applications simultaneously without their interrupting or corrupting each other. - grammar: "their" is wrong here. Also needs a ref.
    • use of soft edges, translucent colors, and pinstripes similar to the hardware of the first iMacs, brought more color and texture to the windows and controls on the Desktop than OS 9's "Platinum" appearance had offered. - comma splice; also, ideally wikilink the "Platinum" user interface.
    • Some, including numerous users of the older versions of the operating system, decried the new look as "cutesy" and lacking in professional polish.[3] Others, however, hailed Aqua as being a bold and innovative step forward in a time when user interfaces were seen as being "dull and boring".[4] - Weasel words
    • Wikilink first occurence of compiler.
    • It supports the ability to target both platforms for which Mac OS X is sold, allowing an application to be built to run only on PowerPC, only on x86, or on both processors as a universal binary. - too technical: for those who don't know that Intel chips run on an x86 architecture, as Windows does, this won't make any sense.
    • The server edition, Mac OS X Server, is architecturally identical to its desktop counterpart but usually runs on Apple's line of Macintosh server hardware. - comma issues here as well. Also, why is this paragraph copied verbatim into the lede? It needs expansion here.
  • Compatibility: more issues here as well:
    • Spell out the first time you use any abbreviation, such as API.
    • However, on July 11, 2005, Apple announced that "features added to Cocoa in Mac OS X versions later than 10.4 will not be added to the Cocoa-Java programming interface."[6] - as my best friend would say: "And why should I care?" What is the relevance, importance or notability of this?
    • Projects such as Fink and DarwinPorts provide precompiled or preformatted packages for many standard packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included X11.app, the company's version of the X Window System graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation.... - {{fact}}
    • Hardware: the entire section needs references here as well.
    • These rumors subsided until late in May 2005, when various media outlets, such as the Wall Street Journal[8] and CNET[9] reported that Apple would unveil Marklar in the coming months. - unclear structure: did the rumors died in 2002 and resurfaced in 2005, or did they persist until 2005?
    • However, Apple encourages Developers to produce Universal Binaries with support for both PowerPC and x86. - {{fact}}
    • Moreover, some PowerPC software, such as kernel extensions and System Preferences plugins, is not supported on Intel Macs. While Intel Macs will run PowerPC binaries as well as x86 and Universal Binaries, PowerPC Macs will only support Universal and PowerPC builds - grammar, missing period at the end of the sentence, and {{fact}} again.
    • Although Apple stated that Mac OS X would not run on Intel-based personal computers aside from its own, a hacked version of the OS developed by the OSx86 community is available illegally through file-sharing networks. However it is no longer up to date with Apple's system updates; using the kernel from a previous update. - copyedit and add references.
  • Prominent features: this entire section is a list. Convert it to prose, and make sure you have references for it.
  • Pricing: {{fact}} again.
  • Naming: more {{fact}}s:
    • The character X is a Roman numeral and is officially pronounced "ten", continuing the numbering of previous Macintosh operating systems such as Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. - if it is "officially" pronounced, give a link referencing where Apple states that.
    • Mac OS X versions are named after big cats. Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named "Cheetah" internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was code named internally as "Puma". After the immense buzz surrounding version 10.2, codenamed "Jaguar", Apple's product marketing began openly using the code name to promote the operating system. 10.3 was similarly marketed as "Panther". Version 10.4 is marketed as "Tiger". "Leopard" has been announced as the name for the next release of the operating system, version 10.5. Apple has also registered "Lynx" and "Cougar" as trademarks. - refs needed here as well, for the codenames, and also for the trademarking of Lynx and Cougar.
  • Timeline: Oh boy. Not a single reference until we get to Leopard. That's just bad.
    • Leopard is unreleased software: that makes the article unstable, so I'm afraid it doesn't pass Criterion 1(e) right there.
  • Criticisms: run a spell check. Also, "demoability" isn't a word.
    • It seems quite surprising to me that there are only two criticisms described here, when you already mentioned several more above.
    • Check the citations here, so they meet WP:FN and the positioning with respect to punctuation, as described there.
• Overall, I wish I could say that this article is close to FA status, but I'm afraid that's not the situation here. As a result, I'm obliged to object, and recommend that it be referred to Wikipedia:Peer review. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Since there's no way I could possibly add anything to the above, I'll just go with oppose per Tito. -- Kicking222 15:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Needs a lot of work before I can support it. Lacking references and needed information. I'll try to help out the best I can. — Wackymacs 18:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per tito and serious lack of references throughout. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore Changi Airport

I've noticed all the hard work by WP:AIRPORTS participants, local editors and those just interested in the airport, with over 1450 edits. It meets all of the criteria at WP:FA?, so far as I can tell:

1. It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
2. It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects
3. It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.
4. It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

I see this article as also having many of the criteria set forth in WP:TPA. We've gone through both a Peer Review and a WikiProject Peer Review without much participation, though the automated review helped the article immensely.

Let the merciless editing and review begin! thadius856_talk 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose To start off, the prose is too choppy. There are too many sections that can be combined for succinctness (like Passenger Terminals can be merged into the Terminals section and the transportation sections can be merged into a single subtopic). As of now, the information seems all over the place, not a very good feature of an FA article. Much more work needs to be done to bring it to FA status. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The article as it stands lacks plenty of crucial information one would expect from an airport article, in particular on its architecture and design philosophy. The Airline services section looks undeveloped. And the entire piece looks disjointed in that it appears to be the result of tussling between factions undecided on just what kind of information an airport article should have.--Huaiwei 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, article does not have enough information to qualify for FA status. Parts of the article do not meet FA standards and the history section is rather vague, not a detailed history. The airport's architecture and security section is not updated, and there is no mention of the cargo section of the airport. Needs some more improvement, until we can send it for FAC again. --Terence Ong _{(C | R)} 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serial Experiments Lain

Self-nomination. This article has been made GA a month ago and has been improved since. This place seems like the right one to get more feed back on how to improve. --SidiLemine 17:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note, I am listing this orphaned nom on WP:FAC now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fill in the redlinks, especially for Ryutaro Nakamura and Triangle Staff. They sound pretty notable to me.--Rmky87 20:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Couldn't find much to say about Triangle Staff, but at least the stubs exist.--SidiLemine 12:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Please, do not consider this statement as means to assure your vote if I nominate MADLAX. ^^; The article is well written and features a whole lot of sourced explanations of the more incomprehensible aspects of the story, which makes it extremely useful and informative. On the other hand, for those, who have not watched the series, it'll be hard to understand just WHAT was the story about, in other words, the plot summary is very superficial. But then, I agree, it is hard to summarize in words (which should probably be stated more explicitly in the article). And that's my rationale for supporting the nom. --Koveras ^☭ 15:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. It would be nice to see some references from books and more serious academic research. See Google Print for suggestions.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Added two books and a (pretty hardcore IMO) universitary study. Please advise if enough. --SidiLemine 16:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object-- First of all, I commend your bravery in taking on the incredibly daunting task of writing about this intricate series. There are still some problems, though.
  • The controversy section states that the creator considered the piece as a criticism of American culture, but doesn't establish who exactly took issue with this. Who specifically found this controversial?
  • There seem to be some unsourced statments (and/or original research) in the article. As attested by the difficulty to find a game review online, the game drew little to no attention from the public is a big one; also Somewhat unusual for anime, the opening song is performed in English begs unusual according to who?
  • I'm not certain about this, since I don't have access to the Animerica article you cite, but the discussion of major themes appears to contain original research, as well. There doesn't seem to be an inline cite for Communication, in its wider sense, is probably the main theme of the series for example; all of the statements of theme should be explictly cited.
  • More sources may be needed in order to approach comprehensiveness. You're not using Visual Experiments Lain or Scenario Experiments Lain as sources; both contain in depth discussion of production, story, and design directly from the creators; also, there's a officially licenced guide to the anime called the "ultimate fan guide", and Anime from Akira to Princess Mononoke: Experiencing Contemporary Japanese Animation by Susan Napier, contains a fair amount of scholarly discussion of Lain and its themes.
  • Lastly, I'm not sure why there's not a seperate article on the Lain Playstation game, but lumping these together seems odd. It seems as though it would make more sense to have a seperate article on the game and briefly address the game here in summary style. The anime is most notable, but there should be more than enough content to justify seperate pieces on both. -- Bailey^(talk) 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just read through the article, and done some spelling work on it. Some bigger things that need cleaning up are "the assumption that everything flows from human thought, memory, and consciousness ("if there is no record of it, it has never existed")." - Is this a philosophical school? Postmodern, perhaps? Are there any analysises (not a real word, I know) about Serial Experiment Lain's place in philosophical/psychological thought? A further analysis of the schools of thought in Lain would be brilliant. Consistency in capitalisation of The Wired (the Wired, the wired?) needs to happen. Wording - "only actual friend" - her only true friend? Find kanji and romanisations for the other characters too. Which episode is Image:Lain hacker small.jpg from? It's in the episodes section. Misspellings in quotes need to be followed by (sic). "It is then no surprise that influences are scarce at best." - could be "It is then no surprise that concrete influences are scarce at best." (or acknowledged, or clear, or something that means specific). "Yoshitoshi ABe confesses to have never read manga as a child, as it was "off-limits" in his household,^[1] so he didn't have manga influences generally expected from anime and manga artists. " This last part needs clarifying, I think. I've done a possible re-write below. Yoshitoshi ABe confesses to have never read manga as a child, as it was "off-limits" in his household,^[2] so it is unlikely that he had artistic influences from other manga artists, as would be the norm. "Close the world, Open the NeXT" is the slogan for the Serial Experiments Lain Playstation video game. NeXT was the company that produced NeXTSTEP, which later evolved into Mac OS X after Apple bought NeXT. At the end of episodes 1-12 the screen says "To Be Continued." The Be, with the blue "B" and the red "e", is the original logo of Be Inc.. - These seem to stand awkwardly, without connection to the rest of the paragraph. The Lain franchise was originally conceived to connect across several forms of media (anime, video games, manga). - Is this part of a wider trend? In the themes section, you mention Rein, Lein and Lain - can you please provide links to more information about who they are, exactly? Even people who have watched the whole series through may get confused. - Malkinann 09:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rocky

After a long process of getting this to GA standard, following an exellent copyedit, I believe this to be a FA worthy article †he Bread 05:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A bit short, but a will written summary of a classic American film. - Mike | Talk 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Refs come at the end of punctuation, not in the middle of a sentence. More later. Rlevse 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Not bad overall, but numerous little problems throughout the entire article:

• As Rlevse Refs come directly at the end of punctuation (a comma or a period) which means there is no space. I would not place footnotes in the middle of sentences unless it's absolutely necessary.

• Fixed

• Rocky II is not italicized in the infobox; fixed this myself.

• Thanks

• Lead doesn't flow too well; the second and third sentences run on a bit too long. It could also be expanded at least one more paragraph: for example, there's no mention of any of the cast except Stallone.
• Is the Production section really big enough to have subsections?

• No longer in subsections

• The 4th paragraph of the synopsis feels unneeded, but the 5th paragraph doesn't make sense without it. Fix please.

• Tided now a lead three paragraphs, no. 1 sets the scene, no. 2 details the build up and the characters, and no. 3 is the fight

• Critical reception could definitely be expanded upon. One critic's opinion on each side speaks for both the positive and negative reaction to the film?
• The Awards table and list should be converted into prose.

• Done

Not done. It's now been converted from a table into a bulleted list, which still is not prose.

On second thought, it doesn't bother me that much. Sorry.--Dark Kubrick 00:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about Music and Cultural Influence. They just feel too small to be honest.

• What is there to say about the music? And Cultural Influence could Definately be expanded, it's just hard with an older movie.

If there's not that much to say about the music, then incorporate it into another section. As for cultural influence, wouldn't the movie being old make it easier to expand that section? Since it was made in the 70s, there must be at least a couple of sources that mention its impact.

On a final note, please do not strike out other people's objections on your own, as you did with mine.--Dark Kubrick 00:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just saw something in the cast section on how Talia Shire just played in The Godfather Part II and had received an Oscar nomination. Now what's that doing in this article? Numerous little problems like these should be fixed, as others have said.--Dark Kubrick 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work so far, but it still needs some improvement before FA.--Dark Kubrick 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object The little problems as described above, limit it's status below featured. Hello32020 20:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object too many internal inconsistencies and weasels, such as 'Several Oscars' is actually three, 'rave reviews' becomes 'mostly positive', etc. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Done it, any more? I couldn't see any †he Bread 02:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. There are several problems, overall this article falls short against other featured articles on films. What is clearly missing is a more detailed description of the cast and characters, the reviews section is too short, the plot is rather brief as well, the release is not discussed in detail, the box office run is only mentioned in the lead, etc. Sloan21 16:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay it's obvious I have alot to work on, thank you all for the most thoughrough review could have aksed for, I'll be frequently reffering to this while getting Rocky up to FA standard

Cheers

†he Bread 22:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gloucester County, Virginia

This article provides a comprehensive and unbiased view of a county that has been an important role in the founding of America, the fight for independence from England, and in the Civil War.

Jordanhmar 01:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am adding this orphaned nomination to WP:FAC now. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Ahem... no references, no photos? It's also a bit short... I'd say the article still needs a fair amount of work... --Ouro 11:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object See the criteria of FAs and recent FAs for what an FA is. Suggest removing per WP:SNOW.Rlevse 12:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Read WP:WIAFA. There are some very good reasons why this has been rated as Start-Class. -- Kicking222 14:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Refer to Peer Review, needs a longer lead, geography is too short etc. -- Selmo ^(talk) 17:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nomination should be retracted Clearly not ready yet, not enough content, not enough references, not enough wikilins, so-so writing. Honestly, this would not have a snowball's chance in hell to get Good Article status yet. Pascal.Tesson 15:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Make Way For Ducklings

This article is incredibly well-written and deserves to be the first children's book to become an FA. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia]] 01:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article uses excellent references, and provides great information of the plot and critical reactions of the story. It analyzes all of these points in depth, while still maintaining a short page length. Though I have never read the book, I feel that after reading it I have a comprehensive understanding of the title. I support this article's nomination for a Featured Article.-Hairchrm 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great work this article has, terrific referencing, and fantastic structure. Hello32020 12:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• SupportMild Object This can be FA with some tweaking. a) It is underlinked. Entire sections have no wikilinks. b) The lead does not summarize the article (ie, no mention of criticism and culture). Lead should be 2, probably 3 paras, and summarize the article, not be a collection of facts. Other than that, I think this is very well done. Rlevse 12:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have summarized the criticism section in the lead, and I am working on the culture section. --Thelb⁴ 20:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. By the way, did the source really criticize the illustrations for the Mallards "often showing the same facial expressions"? These are quite strange grounds for disapproval considering that the Mallards are, you know, ducks. Andrew Levine 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent analysis of the book, and a map of their routes? I like this quite a bit. The book is a classic, and an appropriate first. --Iriseyes 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. A very nice article; short, but nothing seems missing. My one concern is that the "Use of page breaks" section needs trimming. If that's copyedited to get rid of repetitions like "enhancing the sense of motion... enhance the surprise... enhancing the sense of surprise" and "forces the reader to quickly turn the page... forces the reader to change the page quickly", then this will definitely get my support. —Celithemis 02:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Biased Support as main author of the article. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment On Rlevse's a), I went through the article, and found nothing which could be reasonably wikilinked that wasn't already. The concern is understandable, but not much can be done, IMO. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; any improvements that can be undertaken from here are minor tweaks. Mangojuice^talk 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Why is For capitalized in the title? It's a preposition and should be lowercase per WP:CAPS. Prolog 20:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And it's capitalised in the first para, and lower in the second. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For is capitalized because it is the title. The title capitalizes For, so we do. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not following. You moved the page from for to For with reason: "proper capitalization". However, this is in fact incorrect capitalization per Wikipedia naming conventions guidelines. "For" is not capitalized on book titles. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization goes by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Prolog 02:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• The book's title is "Make Way For Ducklings" as listed on the title page in the Library of Congress information. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 04:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a special case, so there is no reason to override WP naming conventions. Besides, even Library of Congress uses "for" 13/14 times at least on www.loc.gov [2] Prolog 05:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think you're misreading the guideline which says, "Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt of "lowercase second and subsequent words". In other words, book titles are capitalized how they appear in the book. WP naming conventions state that book titles are exempt, so this point is moot. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 05:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Lowercase second..." is obviously not for books/films/albums, but you're discussing the wrong part of the naming conventions. Book titles are capitalized per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization), which says In general, titles of books, films, and other works are also capitalized, except for articles (a, and, the) and prepositions and conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., to, from, and). "For" is a preposition with three letters. Prolog 06:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Case in point: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. Capitalized in the book so capitalized on Wikipedia.— Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 07:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Over" is functioning as an adverb there. In that case, capitalization is justified and that doesn't need to have anything to do with how it was originally capitalized in the book. I also noticed there is another McCloskey "for" book on Wikipedia: Blueberries for Sal. This is a good example why naming conventions are useful. If we can't keep consistency within one author's work, it's gonna be hard within the whole project. Prolog 08:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, seems as though I'm out gunned here. I only changed it one night because of what the book had, but it appears even the Library of Congress is against me here. Just one thing: let's wait 'til after the FAC is over to move it. It may be messy to move in the middle of a candidacy. Agreed? — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 23:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I didn't mean to make a big deal about the capitalization issue, so sorry about that. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment it might be just me but 'Background' seems to fit better before 'Plot'. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 00:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Inappropriate for a featured article candidate. Not now, but maybe in the future. --SunStar Net 13:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • CommentNot a viable/actionable objection. All articles are eligible for FA. If you have concerns about the article, they need to actionalble and specific. Rlevse 13:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-referenced and has a very nice layout. Prolog 02:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coldplay

This article has a fair number of photos of the band, the discography is comprehensive, the text is in chronological order and flows nicely and is well-referenced.--OOODDD 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I am listing this apparently orphaned FAC page on WP:FAC; seems it has drawn some support over the months... —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strongly agree - I think this is a particularly good article, well and comprehensively laid out with a near perfect length, great photos and comprehensive info on early years and current albums.-- Sebrat 21:23, 20 August 2006
• Comment - I don't think it's ready for FA. It's a very good article but it's still missing something. There are very few references for the article's size (the 2007 section does not have any, the following has one). Maybe the websites section can be reduced, two or three websites out. However, it definitely deserves GA status.--Fluence 01:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• For - --AAA!
• Agree - There are enough pictures, references and a detailed discography. Even if it doesn't become an FA, I agree with Fluence, it should at least be a GA. ~ EmeZxX ` 14:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - The number of references start out okay, but then tail off. Whole sections are without citations. Also, towards the end, the citations switch from footnote style to just outside links. Gzkn 03:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. MLilburne 11:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. Also, the ref on Q magazine needs to be in standard format, many refs appear in the middle of the sentence, but they should appear after punctuation. Rlevse 12:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Gzkn. Also, I can find no reference of the licence for the pictures on the sites that they came from... For example, Image:073.jpg says it came from http://www.easytoplease.net/images/ but on that site there is no mention of a Creative Commons Licence, instead mentioning "© 2001-2006; Elizabeth Baker". Martin Hinks 17:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Also this image from http://pub.tv2.no/multimedia/na/archive/00177/Coldplay_177057m.jpg. Its from a commercial TV network site(TV2 Norway). I doubt they have many creative commons licenses on their material - nothing I can find at least. Abel29a 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Object: Per Gzkn, reference need to be cleaned up. Also, please ensure that only one version of English (AmEx, BrEx) is consistantly used throughout the article (Eg. "Coldplay is.." vs. "Coldplay are.."). There appears to no information on any criticism of the band's work. There's also no information on the band's major musical influences and no information on how Coldplay has influenced popular music in England and North America. Refer to Genesis to see how you can cover off on these sections. AreJay 21:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong object See the article's talk page for why I have failed it in its candidacy to become a Good Article. -- Kicking222 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It really deserved GA. Better luck for the next time :(--Fluence 02:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but no, it didn't. Like I said, check out the talk page. There's absolutely no reason why it couldn't be a GA (or FA) someday, but that day is not today, and not until a lot of work is done. -- Kicking222 22:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Agree This article contains all the info a fan (o anyone else interested in this band) would like to find. The artice is ell divided and contains a considerable number of pictures. Keith Azzopardi 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hurricane Edith (1971)

I finished this article a few weeks ago. It's well-written, factually accurate, comprehensive, neutral (IMO), stable (I've been the main editor, and Titoxd copyedited it, nothing else really), conforms to the correct style, 2 images, and good length. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very informative, and comprehensive details. Hello32020 21:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rlevse 12:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written, with good details. Must_WIN 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per all of the above. A job well done. Cliff smith 04:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with the obvious conflict of interest. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Navy

This is the request for second review.The first one is is archieved. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Indian Navy/archive1 Chanakyathegreat 03:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object refer to Peer Review per above. It could develop into a FA but is not one now. Hello32020 20:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC) Note: this comment was made here because the original FAC nomination was archived late. Pagrashtak 17:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object - references should be linked to more than just webpages. From the footnotes, no reference books appear to have been used writing this article at all. Suggest Peer Review and much improvement (including to history section) as per other comments. Buckshot06 07:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: insufficient lead; fair use images have rather weak rationales (some are replaceable); section headers use proper caps, contrary to WP:MOS; footnotes belong after punctuation, not before; stand-alone years should not be linked; references need to be formatted ({{cite web}} makes this easier). I picked a section at random (Weapon Systems) to check the prose. After I found problems in the first five sentences, I stopped: The Indian Navy uses the most latest technology... (most latest?), Some of this systems... (this systems?), Others like the BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles are jointly developed with Russia (missing commas), The Navy has got the Lakshya PTA[34]. (has got? choppy.), There has been reports... (reports has?). Also, this section has "Submarine-based missiles" as an entire paragraph, not sure what happened there. I suggest peer review and trying for GA as your first goal. Pagrashtak 17:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User Gimmetrow corrected footnotes and puts them after punctuation. Lead section expanded after correction. Section for Books added in reference section(need expansion). corrected the weapon system section. Looking for more errors. Chanakyathegreat 03:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is a lot of good content here, but I think the article could benefit from a copy-edit by a third party. In the last FAC someone said "Navy's not Navies" but I don't think this meant the entire article. Generally "Navy's" is a possessive (The Navy's headquarters) and "navies" is a plural (the many navies of the world). I just fixed quite a few similar apostrophe-s constructions where it seemed a plural was intended. Gimmetrow 01:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Bill (2003)

Self-nom. I finished the article a few weeks ago, and I was going to wait until my other FA was finished, but I can handle two FAC's right now. Bill's article is very comprehensive, well-written (IMO), and it has pictures. Comments? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Suppport. Wow... íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Commment External links come after refs. Rlevse 22:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks, got it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written, developed, with many terrific images. (Note: I contributed one image to this article.) Hello32020 01:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - May I note also that WikiProject Tropical cyclones knows its stuff, and doesn't kid around when it comes to nominating FACs. Every time they submit one, it's already ready already, almost no changes required. Good work guys... Fieari 03:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Yea, the project aims for very high standards for articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Why the hell can't every single topic on WP that isn't hurricanes/tropical storms have half as many high-quality editors (and high-quality articles) as storms do? -- Kicking222 04:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment/conditional oppose - many of the NDCC links/refs for the tornadoes don't seem to be working. – Chacor 05:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Popups problem. Support, as the links in the refs section work. – Chacor 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yet another excellent hurricane/tropical storm article, great job Hurricanehink and Titoxd! Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Create articles for all redlinks, especially ones inside the lead. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Rather than creating articles for the red links, I switched them to an existing wiki-links. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Man, the tropical cyclones WikiProject just keeps churning out high quality FACs! A caption question: is it supposed to be Damaged trees from a tornado? Also, one of the captions has a period at the end while the others all don't. Might want to make them consistent. Gzkn 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 16:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Mike | Talk 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per most of the above. Impressive amount of refs; good job. Cliff smith 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mount Tambora

Self-nom. This article has been peer-reviewed, in the GA process and through a number of copyedits by independent reviewers (thanks to Yomangani, Wayward, ONUnicorn and also others); now it's time for FAC. I've tried to expand a little bit, but now it seems that all materials needed for the subject are already written there. Any comments for further improvements are very welcomed. — Indon (reply) — 16:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A well researched and presented article. Well done Indon. (MichaelJLowe 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))
• Comment - This is a fine and fascinating article, but I don't beleive it comprehensively covers the topic. It appears to only really cover the 1815 eruption. There is the date 1967 in the infobox for the last eruption, but no mention made in the text. Has the volcano erupted anymore times? What about the parasitic cones mentioned in the geological formation section? When did they appear? My advice would be to compare this article with the Mount Pinatubo article and fill in what is missing. I might also suggest that the 1815 eruption be broken off into a separate article, perhaps one that might even merge with the article on the Year Without a Summer, being that it is such a major event with worldwide implications. One other minor quibble, the second sentence should include what volcano erupted in 181 AD. The way it is written gives the impression that it was Tambora rather than Taupo. Indeed, what is written is very good, but I don't think all angles have been explored. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the article has been properly expanded. Nice job! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Answer: Thanks for your comments. It's a good comments. As per eruptive history, I've added one section about that. I have tried to find information, regarding its geological informations, but that is as far as I can get. Most Mount Tambora information in peer-reviewed journals only cover the 1815 eruption, and that's the problem. About the splitting the article, I would disagree about that. The 1815 eruption in this article only focuses on the eruption itself and one section about the long-term global effect, but I put it as a summary style. Take a look at Mount Pinatubo that most of its part explains about the 1991 eruption and its global effect. I have also clarified the second sentence you mentioned. I am going to try my best to find sources for the other angles. — Indon (reply) — 11:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further answer: I have expanded the article to get more angles as you have mentioned. It has now Ecosystem and Monitoring sections to describe the current situation in the mountain. — Indon (reply) — 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well presented. Well done Indon SatuSuro 01:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Request - please explain further about comprehensiveness - perhaps Krakatoa and Mount Merapi are as important to compare as is Pinatubo. SatuSuro 04:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason I chose Pinatubo was that it is a featured article on a volcano. Indeed, I did miss Mauna Loa when I was searching for an article to compare this with. Certainly Mauna Loa is also a good volcano article. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object - Comprehensiveness, as per above. Fieari 03:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC) I'm satisfied now. Fieari 17:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support a very deep and still readable article. However perhaps you can expand on the "Archaeological evidence" se~ction. Meursault2004 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection per Ganymede's concerns - once these are fixed up, I think it will make it. riana_dzasta 16:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also, the lead paragraph is a bit abrupt - there is an introductory sentence, and then it immediately goes into the 1815 incident. I know this is the most important aspect of Tambora, but perhaps one more descriptive sentence is necessary. That's all I got from a very quick read of the article, I might will go through more thoroughly when I have time. riana_dzasta 16:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I have rephrased the lead section. You're right about the abrupt flow. I have already expanded the article, but forgot to rewrite also the lead section. — Indon (reply) — 11:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good work, Indon, it's very nice now. I just have a few more minor things that should probably be cleared up.

• From Global effects: 1816 was the second coldest year in the northern hemisphere since AD 1400 (1601 was the coldest following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru). This sentence is confusing - it should be expanded and cleared up.
• From Chronology of the eruption: Darkness enveloped an area as wide as 600 km (370 mi) away for up to two days. - Area should be quoted in sq km or sq mi, not 'km away'. Alternatively, don't use the word 'area' at all, and rewrite the sentence.

These were the only issues that I couldn't take care of myself, I made some minor grammatical changes. riana_dzasta 03:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot riana_dzasta for your copyedit. I have fixed two sentences you asked above, after I checked and re-read the source again. Please take a look again. I hope everything has been cleared now. — Indon (reply) — 08:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, excellent work, Indon and others! riana_dzasta 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and well-researched. I found it a fascinating article. I've done some minor copy-edits, but it reads well and is supported by good quality images and inline quotations. --Bwmodular 13:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Comprehensive and interesting. I have done some copyediting on it but only to correct minor typos and phrasing. Yomangani^talk 17:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support A really good article, well written and very comprehensive. The images are good too, make the article even more interesting. Well done! Imoeng 11:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Óengus I of the Picts

I'm nominating this article because it is clearly of FA quality. The topic is a very demanding one, and the research for the article more thorough than WP can reasonably expect to have on such an article. The nature of the topic may mean that at times the article can be unavoidably technical in style and it may not naturally interest all general readers, but the text is tight, the explanations clear, and the article as a whole very well balanced. It is an almost perfect way to start research on the king, which is precisely what WP is supposed to be about. The achievement of the article thoroughly deserves FA recognition. The article has been under peer review for a while, and because it has already reached FA quality for content and is generating no more comments on style, it is now obviously time for the FA nomination stage. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per nomination, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It is about the most comprehensive coverage of this remarkable ruler that I've ever seen. Bravo! Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article. One minor quibble, though: the first map needs a caption. Kirill Lokshin 16:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article.Kaisershatner 18:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done! - Mailer Diablo 19:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, outstanding article. Kyriakos 20:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support...ditto. Comprehensive, well-written, lead OK Cas Liber 09:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, very informative and well written. Also, all sources are cited. Yono 22:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Some great research here. Good job! Some specific comments:
  • Caption for the first image could use some work. Some readers who jump straight to the picture without first reading the article may be confused by "the royal figure". Identifying it as Oengus would be better IMO. Also, what is a "kaiserfibel" and "imitatio imperii"? It may therefore be taken... - ambiguous use of "it".
  • The last three paragraphs of Sources and background could use some citations.
  • Óengus was middle-aged by the time he entered into history and his early life is unknown. Chronology of that sentence is a bit weird... How about this: "Much of his early life is unknown; Óengus was middle-aged by the time he entered into the annals of history."
  • On 12 August 729 Óengus defeated and killed Drest at the undentified Druimm Derg Blathuug "Unidentified" maybe? Still confusing though...what is "Druimm Derg Blathuug"? A battle site?
  • The story of the foundation of St Andrews, originally Cennrígmonaid, is confused... I'm not sure "confused" is the right word to use there...
  • The amount of information that has come down to us about Óengus... Avoid first person Gzkn 03:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll try to address those helpful remarks. Thank you. As for a kaiserfibel, I believe that it is a brooch like the one Justinian is wearing on the San Vitale mosaic in Ravenna (see here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Revised to meet Gzkn's concerns; hope I succeeded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. My concerns in the peer review have been answered. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support because, per Calgacus, this article is clearly worthy of FA status. It is well-written, comprehensive, concise, and has a superb amount of fact-filled notation. And in my opinion, those who want to contribute to making an article worthy of FA-class should examine this article—this is how you do it. Cliff smith 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelina Jolie

Self-nomination. This article has been nominated once before (link to previous nomination). All concerns raised on its original submission have since been addressed and the article also underwent a complete copy edit. I believe it is now among the best articles for present day actors. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I would support, but you really need to remove all the citations to the IMDB. It's not a reputable source, but rather fan-submitted. I think there's even a line about it in WP:RS. Mad Jack 00:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The IMDb biography is used for three rather uncontroversial statement. I don't think that's a big problem; I will try to find other sources tomorrow. -- EnemyOfTheState 01:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the one that annoys me the most is #2 - about her ancestry. Pick any 5 IMDB bios that mention ancestry, and at least 4 would be totally wrong or at least somehow misleading. I'm not sure myself what the story is with Jolie's mother - if she's actually French or French-Canadian - because I think I read somewhere she was born in France, or something. And the statement "People often assume that Jolie's mother is French, because of her name, but Jolie's grandparents were French-Canadian" is totally unsourced. As for her father, I also don't remember seeing anything about English ancestry anywhere outside of the IMDB, which is also not a good sign. I'm willing to bet though, that any reliable info about that subject that you or I end up finding would contradict the IMDB's, at least somehow. I'll look around. Mad Jack 01:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here's at least one reliable first-hand source about the topic: [3] "She is, however, extremely close to her mother, who is often wrongly identified as a French actress. "My mom is as far from French Parisian as you can get," Jolie says. "She's part Iroquois Indian, from Chicago. She grew up in a bowling alley that my grandpartents owned. She studied to be an actress, but she married my father, and by 28 she was divorced with two kids. She gave up her dreams."" I'm not sure if that means her mother isn't even French Canadian. Still haven't been able to find anything reliable about Jon Voight's ancestry Mad Jack 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And our own Wiki Jon Voight article says that he's German-American! So, as you can see, some first-hand sources definitely needed here... Mad Jack 02:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Her mother is definitely not French, she explained that herself in this [4] interview, for example. I know that she is often cited as "French" in the media and that's basically why this statement is in there. About Voight being English, you might have a point there, it has been disputed before, so it might be best to just cut it. He is definitely Czech (or rather Sudeten German) though, this has been addressed during her Inside the Actors Studio appearance. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone out to correct the Jon Voight article, then... :-) The actor's Studio is a great source, that is what we should cite (and I found the same article about her grandparents, see above.) Mad Jack 02:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made some changes and removed the IMDb source. Maybe I will find another source tomorrow. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I added another source, an article from the UK newspaper The Independent, where she was described as "Czech, French-Canadian and Iroquois". I think that should be sufficient. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much, therefore I....

• Support per above Mad Jack 03:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I think the article is well written, structured, researched and referenced. The only thing I still don't like is the "superstardom" header. I won't object on that basis but it's a worthless word that has lost any power it may have once had due to it being so overused. It's also POV, and the fact that it applies better to Jolie than most people it's used to describe, and that it's probably a widely held view, doesn't matter. It's impossible to quantify or attribute. There must be another word or phrase that can describe her as successful. Other than that, I think it's great. Rossrs 06:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The only alternative I can think of right now would be something like "International fame/success/prominence". Maybe you have a better idea. -- EnemyOfTheState 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think "international success" is accurate without being excessive and is well supported by the text that follows. It would be my choice. I think it's more specific than "fame" or "prominence" which can be achieved even in the absence of success (think Zsa Zsa Gabor or Paris Hilton). Rossrs 01:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And I'll upgrade my support to a support+  ;-) Rossrs 14:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Too many fairuse images for a candidate for Main Page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There are two movie screen shots and two other fair use images, I don't see how this could be considered excessive; I think this might actually be below average for "Media" FAs. Also, this nomination is not connected to a possible appearance on the main page. -- EnemyOfTheState 14:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - for what it's worth.... I agree with you. The lead image is from Commons and even if the article made it to the main page, this is obviously the image that would be used. The other images are used sparingly and to illustrate the text. ie they are not random or merely decorative. They all have acceptable fair use rationales IMO. Rossrs 20:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per previous nomination and per above. The number of fair use images seems fine to me. Sloan21 15:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Is it appropriate to credit her for films that have not yet been released down in the "Filmography" section? — RJH (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's an official guideline for this, but it's definitely done in other FAs (Uma Thurman, Julia Stiles, Diane Keaton, Eric Bana, etc.). It seems appropriate to me, since the majority of the films mentioned in the article are already in (post-)production. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Presumably then that type of crystal-ball filmography was done at the time that those examples were FA'd, rather than subsequently... :-) — RJH (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust

If the necessary improvements are made, could the objects become supports?

support good article, well written Ahadland 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: If this article is a good one, nominate it here. Only if the article is relatively excellent can it be an FA. Also: the lead is a bit long. This may or may not be good; I can't tell, for I have no time to look over it. --Gracenotes ^T § 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I have read this article before, and I think it is very good (and it is already a GA). However, it does need more citations than it now has. One example: The mass killing was at its worst in Central and Eastern Europe, which had more than 7 million Jews in 1939; about 5 million Jews were killed there, including 3 million in occupied Poland and over 1 million in the Soviet Union. Hundreds of thousands also died in the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Without sources to support this paragraph (which I believe completely), I can see Holocaust deniers getting into an edit war to lower the figures or delete the paragraph. I noticed that several parqagraphs had no citations at all, and that there were citation tags in the text. I will read the article in more depth tomorrow (almost 1 am now) and see if I can offer any more suggestions. I'm also happy to help with copy editing and referencing, if the editors of this article would like. I certainly *want* to support this FAC. Jeffpw 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much, the Holocaust was an important historical event which seems to have faded into little more than 1 or two history lessons in school. I think featuring it will help highlight the historical lessons that can be learned.Ahadland 00:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object: Not ready for FA. I wouldn't even approve it as GA because it has a merge tag, inconsistent ref formatting, external jumps, and citation needed tags. I didn't get to reading it. It is also 110K long. Suggest consider splitting some off into sub articles. Lead is too long, it should summarize the article without going into lots of details. Rlevse 01:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Very reluctant Object: As per Rlevse. Because this article is so very long, it would be difficult to address all of the problems that need correcting while it is being discussed as a FAC. It is my understanding that at least one citation is needed per paragraph, and citations are mandatory for any assertion of fact that might be challenged. There are multiple paragraphs that are unsourced, and some of the prose needs copy editing badly (that paragraph about the baby springs immediately to mind. The subject is so powerful already that (IMO) a dispassionate tone is necessary so as not to appear overwrought.

I have no objections as to the length. This subject is so large in scale that a complete overview must by necessity be equally large. I repeat what I said yesterday. If you or other editors want my help, I am glad to give you a hand. Jeffpw 07:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have posted your suggestions on the articles talk page, and have requested that the contributor's to the article will help to improve it so as to allow the article FA status. I'm going to request that a checklist be compiled, i.e. a list of tasks, which can be crossed after their completion. We will then ask you to re-assess the article and give us your thoughts then. Thank you, Ahadland 12:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - Size itself isn't exactly the issue, it's merely a symptom of the problem that the article needs to be written to more closely conform to Summary Style. Note that the text alone of this article is 89kb. I'm not saying remove information from wikipedia, I'm just asking that the article be reorganized so that more of the text is located within sub-articles linked to from the main article, which should then summarize the information split off. The "Perpetrators and collaborators" section wuld be a prime candidate for a sub article, as would "Historical and philosophical interpretations". If these two sections alone were split off and summarized, I think it would do a lot for the article. Of course, as above, there are also referencing issues to be considered before this can be featured. As a further issue, the "Holocaust denial" section probably shouldn't be listed under the "Why did people participate in, authorize, or tacitly accept the killing?" section. Fieari 04:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object: While this article is well written, it is just too long. This article needs to be split into sub-articles in order for the information to be more organized. No one wants to read through 89kb of text to hear about the Halocaust. The WP:SIZE article specifically states that pages over 50kb should "Probably be divided". There are numerous reasons for this, they can all be found in the WP:SS page. Other than the very long size, I would say it is a great article.-Hairchrm 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In fairness, the holocaust is a very long subject, with a broad history, which dates back to the roots of anti semitism, through to nineteen forty five, so given that, id say the article is reasonably sized —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.36.182.217 (talk • contribs) .

But no one is arguing that we should cut down on our content related to the holocaust. The point people are trying to make here is that the main article should be fairly concise and should rely on sub-articles for extended discussions of various aspects. Pascal.Tesson 15:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object on length considerations. The article is very nice in many many respects but the length issue also outlines the main problem: organization. Let me humbly suggest a few things that would help

1. spin off the list of collaborationist countries to another article. That's just too long an exposition and the article loses focus at that point. It would be much better to have an extended paragraph explaining that many countries collaborated to various degrees and with various degrees of awareness. Interested readers can be redirected to the specific article. This would cut 10-15 kb I think.
2. The functionalism vs intentionalism section could also be cut down in the same way, with a more concise discussion. However, this probably requires an update of Functionalism versus intentionalism which is not as good as the section in the main article.
3. I feel that the Jehovah's witness section gives undue weight to their persecution. Now before people start accusing me of being a heartless bastard, let me say that I in no way wish to minimize their plight, but they really were not that significant a group of victims. And the subsection seems to be out of place as it speaks of their persecution while the section is about resistance. My advice: remove the paragraph entirely, create (if it does not exist yet) a specific article for JW's persecution by the Nazis and link to it in the section Victims. (oh, nevermind, it is already!)
4. When subarticles exist, the content in the main article should be minimal so that the flow is not interrupted. For instance, the discussion of Mengele's experiments is too long and there is a lot of redundancy with that subsection and the first paragraph of the Cruelty section. In fact that whole section needs reorganizing as the first three paragraphs are redundant with what follows.
5. I'm surprised to see little or no mention of resistance besides that of the Jewish resistance. Did it really not exist? (It might, I'm just asking)
6. While I understand that Schindler's List and Life is Beautiful were very popular and had a lot of impact, wouldn't it be more appropriate to cite documentaries like Shoah (film)? To a certain extent it's weird to consider Lanzmann's work or for that matter the work of Primo Levi or even Maus as in the same category as fiction movies with the Holocaust as a background. Perhaps there should be two distinct subsections (or paragraphs) for fiction work inspired by and litterature and art that attempts to document the Holocaust.
7. I'm really not a big fan of section titles phrased as questions. It feels vaguely children's-book.
8. And finally, at the risk of sounding picky, I'd like to point out that the second half of the article could use a couple of pictures. I know we don't want such an article to look like a page of Wired magazine but still... Maybe a picture of Primo Levi or Antelme? Of (shudder...) Ernst Zündel or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Pascal.Tesson 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fluke (band)

I have been working on this article for some time now. I hope that other editors will find it is well written, thoroughly referenced and comprehensive considering the limited number of resources available on the topic. Martin Hinks 15:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Way too many samples! Reduce the number of samples because it is pushing fair use. Also, try using Template:cite web when citing a web source. CloudNine 16:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now taken out most of the samples from inline with the text except where it indicates a change of musical style or a significant song. I'll work on using the cite web template... Martin Hinks 16:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now all using cite web template as well. Martin Hinks 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now removed samples from the bottom cluster as well, only leaving in songs that show a clear change in musical direction. Hopefully this resolves your comments. Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice article. I agree that having that many songs bunched together verges an infringement of the tenets of fair use, but assume that this issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all. I do have one other detraction, nonetheless, to this otherwise informative and well sourced article. (Sourced to death, some might say :).) Incidentally, I'd like to beef about style, and the general voice and diction used in certain portions of the article. Some sections seem to operate outside of the realm of rules regarding subordinate clauses. For example, take

The band's debut album, 2Pie Island, was released in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention either positive or negative.

The passive voice in this sentence is a personal style objection: my tendency to appreciate the active voice, when it can be used, is often hypocritically ignored by me. (To speak nothing of split infinitives.) In the above sentence the phrase "either positive or negative" sounds like a run-on sentence because it is an unrequired subordinate clause the likes of which should be set off by a comma and I must comment that if commas are not used that often it gets fluid either to the point where the prose does not seem brilliant or you're not entirely sure how the sentence started. Finally, "either-or" should be "neither-nor." I would suggest:

2 Bit Pie released 2Pie Island, the band's debut album, in September 2006 in the UK to virtually no critical attention, neither positive nor negative.

Or even better:

In September 2006, 2 Bit Pie released its debut album, 2Pie Island, in the UK. The coverage by cultural critics was minimal and overall neutral, and the album amassed only a dearth of critical attention.

Also note, for example:

The album is named Risotto because it contained a mix of the pre-released singles "Atom Bomb" and "Absurd", new tracks "Goodnight Lover", "Kitten Moon", the post-album single "Squirt" and older tracks remixed by themselves; "Mosh" being a remix of "Tosh" from Oto.

What's a risotto? I had to look that up. After learning what it is, it took an intellectually significant logical inference to determine the nature of the causality in the quote above. "Being" should generally not be used as a verb.

This content is good, but just to me, the manner in which it is presented is of generally good but occasionally dubious quality (in certain places). Martin Hinks: briefly looking over your contributions, you have a tendency to articulate things deftly. Some of this article does not have this. Also, endnotes must have been a relative nightmare: good job on that. I admire the work you've done for this article. I'm attempting to do the same for Flat Earth (right now I'm creating a "game plan" before editing), and it requires a concentrated exertion of pure brainpower. I overall support this article! --Gracenotes ^T § 22:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for the support - I'll take a look through the article today and see what I can do about those passive voices. I'll also link in risotto to give the context for that sentence.

I have now looked at the sentences you specified and will continue to look through the article for any other sentences that aren't up to scratch. Many thanks, Martin Hinks 08:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Object There's information in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. The lead should only be a summary of the article. LuciferMorgan 17:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Jersey State Constitution

The article's been Peer Review-ed, GA, and I've worked on it for a long time. Peer Review didn't really give me much to work with, so I'm nominating it. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose There's a {{citation needed}} tag in the lead, there's a section tagged as needing copyediting, and only two references don't come from the state constitution itself. The "Criticisms" paragraph is a mess. -- Kicking222 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per above. Rlevse 15:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - In addition to the issues pointed out by kicking, I'm concerned with consistency throughout the article. A couple of the articles are summarized in a few sentences, while others go on for paragraphs. I understand that the articles vary in their complexity, but I still think some need to be beefed up a bit. For example, Article I does not detail all the unalienable rights, and Article III does not mention what the 3 branches are. Not to put too much on the table, but the entire article could use a very mild edit to remove passive voice when possible. Nice job on the article to this point, and good luck with the final push! →Bobby← 20:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't even approve this as GA, it seems to have degraded since it got GA rating.Rlevse 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amtrak

After reviewing this article, and noticed its several awards for good presentation, i place article up for nomination on the Featured Articles. It deserves the spotlight thanks to all it's contributors. --Drumlineramos 20:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. 4 citation neededs in the first section. This alone tells me the article needs a lot of work. I suggest withdrawing, dredging up some sources, and a peer review. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• object while it is good, my first thought is that there are far too few references for an article of this length and with this large a quantity of numeric/technical data, and those that are listed are shown in at least four different formats that I can see. The list data that is included from the start of the "Amtrak routes and services" section through to the end needs better formatting and more and better prose to explain the data that is there (for example, the two external links listed in the "Gaps in service" subsection are very poorly formatted). I'd rather see this article go through a massive collaboration in WikiProject Trains to improve it (like was done with TGV before its FAC nomination) before coming back here. Slambo (Speak) 20:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There are a lot of things needed to be done for this article to get FA standards. I will list some of it here:
  • Per WP:EL, please do not put external links that are unecessary, such as forums, third-party commercial sites, groups, anonymous sites, etc.
  • There are still a lot of red links. Create 1-2 paragraphs of stub or just remove the wikilink.
  • I see there are a lot of citations needed tags. Please supply those. I agree that the list of references is so thin for the size of this article. Consider also to use 3rd party peer-reviewed reliable sources. Avoid too many citations from the subject itself, as it may give too strong POV.
  • Per WP:NOT, do not put too many lists, as the article does not serve as a list of routes, tracks, stations, etc.
  • One stubby section for Labor dispute. Why is that so little? I think this section should be expanded more, as most of government coorperation suffers from workers disputes. I've put the expand section tag there.
  • The history section suffers unreferenced statements. Please provide more inline citations there.

For the editors, please do not try to speedy fix the above issues. The article takes time to shape itself into FA quality one. After some improvements, please try WP:PR first, or ask somebody - a good copyeditor - who does not familiar with the subject to improve the prose. — Indon (reply) — 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Atangana

Self-nomination. Peer review was helpful but has petered out. The article's about a Cameroonian leader who served under both the Germans and French. He opposed armed resistance to the colonials and instead tried to work within the system to help his people. It's an interesting story, and I hope others will find it worth their time to read. This would be my first Cameroon-related FA, so I hope folks'll find it worth the star. Thanks, — BrianSmithson 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Very nicely written article. Very intresting man but forgive me if I missed it, but who gave him the name 'Charles', since you say his birth name is 'Ntsama'? Also 1 sentence struck me as akward 'Nevertheless, he was never loved by everyone.' Anyway thanks for writing this wonderful piece for a man I would never had found out about without wikipedia. - Tutmosis 20:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. He took the German name Karl upon baptism and this was changed to its French version, Charles, when France became the colonial power in East Cameroon after World War I. I'll take a look at that sentence; it bothers me a bit too. Perhaps a suitable replacement would be, "Nevertheless, some of his subjects opposed his reign." — BrianSmithson 22:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, no complaints. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The only thing that broke the narrative flow for me is "Sso initiation ritual", which is neither linked nor described, so I ended up fruitlessly looking around the page for more information. - BanyanTree 00:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article, a pleasure to read. --Robth^Talk 00:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written and highly informative, combined with good referencing. One (very minor) issue, the photograph used to illustrate the head of the article - I would suggest that it be increased in size, to about 250px width - make a bolder initial impression. In an ideal world I would suggest that you might think about replacing that photograph with one which is less indistinct and fuzzy, perhaps also think about finding some more for the Later life section. Having said that, I readily appreciate that photographs will be pretty thin on the ground for this subject matter. All in all, good work.

Xdamr^talk 00:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I've incorporated the suggestions folks have made here so far. The Sso ritual may very well deserve its own article; Quinn mentions it only briefly in his biography, though. He seems to go into more detail in this journal article, but I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment and can't learn anything more. At any rate, I've tried to define it a bit better. As for images, I agree more would be better and some of the ones that are there leave something to be desired. When I get back to Cameroon (someday), I plan to visit and photograph the Atangana monument and palace, but that could be several years. Quinn says that Atangana had several photographs made while in Germany; some of these are presumably still available somewhere, but probably only in German sources. I promise to add anything I find, of course. — BrianSmithson 08:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Marvelous article! Congratulations! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. - for the moment by the following issues: Support
  • Remove redundancies of vague terms of size, such as much, some, etc. For instances, (I picked them randomly)
    • "....was the paramount chief of the Ewondo and Bane ethnic groups during much of the colonial period in Cameroon." → try to remove "much of".
    • "...appointed Atangana interpreter for some 500 Bulu hostages,..." → well, it has an exact number, why would make it more ambiguous?
    • "...received some sort of administrative post,..." → try to replace "some sort of" with "an".
    • etc. There are a lot more. Copyediting is really needed to improve the prose of this article.
  • I guess at FA level, redlinks are bad. It means to point a reader to something that does not exist yet. Just create a stub of 1-2 paragraphs article, if editors think that certain terms are needed to be explained more in other article. Otherwise, remove the redlinks.
  • Per WP:LS, the lead section should be carefully sourced as appropriate. I found several sentences that should be sourced in the lead section. For example: "He proved himself an intelligent and diplomatic administrator,...", "His loyalty to the German Empire was unquestioning,..." , etc.
  • An encyclopaedia item should be accurate whenever it will be read in the future. Please avoid using inexact words to state a time, per WP:MOS. For instances, today, present-day, now, soon, etc.

— Indon (reply) — 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Good comments, but a couple of points. Redlinks aren't a problem under the Featured article criteria; also, if something is sourced in the body of the article, it doesn't need to be sourced in the lead. --Robth^Talk 21:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. The lead section should be sourced, although it's taken from the body. A reader reads the lead section first, and may raise a question about its source. (S)He is not reading directly to the body. Per WP:LS, the lead section should be able to stand at its own; thus it should have proper citations. The redlinks, though are not listed at WP:WIAFA, they are bad, because an FA article will be put in the main page. Is it so difficult to create a stub article? — Indon (reply) — 21:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My reading of WP:LS does not require citations in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body of the article; as such, it should be drawing on information supported by the citations and sources in the rest of the article. This is fairly standard practice. Now, if a quotation is used in the lead or something like that, it then becomes appropriate to cite. --Robth^Talk 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you insist. It's okay. Now let's see in this article. From the lead section: "He proved himself an intelligent and diplomatic administrator,..." → It's a definitely unsourced claim, but I can't find anywhere in the body. — Indon (reply) — 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Robth's right. The lead does not need inline citations; it only summarizes information that should be properly cited in the body of the article. And red links are not against the criteria. They may be used to justify not putting the article on the main page, but they can't be used to keep it from attaining FA status. At any rate, I'm busy trying to turn them blue, so that shouldn't be a worry. As for your other points: "Was paramount chief of the Ewondo and Bane during the colonial period of Cameroon" does not give the same information that "during much of the colonial period" does; one is vague, one is more specific. He "received an administrative post" sounds okay, but "some sort of administrative post" better describes the vagueness of the sources on this issue in my view. The 500 hostages number is not precise. It could be changed to "about" or something, but "some" sounds better to me. I won't dispute that a fresh pair of eyes going over the article could help it, but the "vague terms of size" that you mentioned seem justified to me. But I'll give it another look over today. Thanks for the comments, — BrianSmithson 22:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; missed your latest comment. The "intelligent and diplomatic' bit is inteded to summarize anecdotes from the article, but a source can easily be found for the specific text. I'll add one later today. Thanks again, — BrianSmithson 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, citations unnecessary in most cases in a lead, and there's no strict rule about this. Redlinks best minimised, but not actionable. Why not create stubs for at least a few of them? "much of the colonial period" is OK to me in the lead, provided we're given the chronology in the body of the article. Tony

(reply to Brian, indent to the left for better reading). I see it now. At first, I thought myself when I was reading the article, that it seems the article has vague sources. Now you stressed it that indeed sources are vague. All right then. Now, I'll see your changes today first, before I change my vote. ;-) — Indon (reply) — 01:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to Indon; de-indenting more) No, no, your comments are good. I'll be out of town this weekend, but I am taking your comments very seriously. I've got a printout of the article with each vague size term and reference to "now" or "today" highlighted. I've already killed some of them, and I'll take a long, hard look at the others once I get back home and to my sources this Sunday. It's possible some of the vague time references have more specific dates that can be substituted, others maybe not so due to the vagueness of the sources. I can also provide sources for a couple of summarizing sentences in the lead.

I have to confess that I'm at a loss for a way to replace "what is today Yaoundé" and "present-day Limbe". Does anyone have any suggestions, or is it okay to refer to the present day in instances like these? -- BrianSmithson 02:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced any vague language that the sources allow; anything that remains reflects the vagueness of the sources used. I also added two references to summarization in the lead that wasn't directly citable from the body of the article itself. I still don't know how else to say that Victoria is now called Limbe and that Atangana was born in a place that is now called Yaoundé without referring to "now" or "today". But I hope your vagueness objections have been taken care of. — BrianSmithson 08:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. More information is needed to establish that the images are in the public domain. When was the book they're from published? Who took them? Haukur 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer the article have no images, or that it use images that were taken back in the 1910s? — BrianSmithson 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that came off as more curt than I intended. The books and websites do not give information on the original source of the images. They are all clearly from the German colonial period, which ended in 1916 or so. If necessary, I can axe one of them and claim the other two as fair use, I suppose. Seems like overkill, though, for images taken so long ago and probably published in German sources long ago. What would be the proper course of action in a situation like this? — BrianSmithson 07:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can establish that the images were published before 1909 they are definitely in the public domain in the United States. If you can establish that they were published before 1923 they are probably in the public domain in the United States. If you can establish that an image was taken by someone who died in 1935 or earlier (what the tags currently claim) then it is in the public domain worldwide. If you can not clearly establish any of these things then add as much information as you can find and use a tag like Template:Fairold. I don't want you to remove any of the images but I would like the licencing information on them to be as clear and informative as possible. Haukur 09:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the photographs' licensing tags to address this issue. Unfortunately, none of the sources used gives detailed information about the dates of the photos or the photographers. I have added as much information as possible and changed the tags as per your suggestions. Thanks again, — BrianSmithson 09:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Objection struck. Haukur 10:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object Inline citations need specific page numbers when using a book source. LuciferMorgan 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The article does give page numbers unless the source is a web page. — BrianSmithson 07:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chalukya dynasty

The article went through its peer review. Some changes were recommended and in accordance, required adjustments to format, content were made.Dineshkannambadi 02:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Have not read the whole article. Some observations:

1. Lead is too big. It need not have the description of so many conflicts. Please try to summarise. The description is expected in the main body later on.

   Thanks. Lead has been summarised now (yesterday and today) and some information which are not really required in introduction have been moved to later sections of the article. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

2. "The progenitors of the dynasty are called the Badami Chalukyas." Here, Badami Chalukya needs to be wikilinked/explained.

   I have included a sentence explaining the name. Badami Chalukyas is another name applied to the original Chalukya dynasty. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

3. In the lead itself Pulakesi II has been called as Pulakesin II. Please stick to one spelling. Same for Chalukyan and Chalukya.

   Thanks. This has been taken care now. - KNM ^Talk 03:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Kubja Vishnu Vardhana - wikilink.

   It has been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 06:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

5. "...they were natives to the Karnataka region." - would it be natives or native?

   The word has been changed to native. - KNM ^Talk 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Seleukia, Ikshavaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khusro II - wikilink.

   Seleukia, Andhra Ikshvaku, Mahakuta Pillar, Kappe Arabhatta, Khosrau II wikilinks have been added now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 20:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

7. ometimes, superscripts for citations have been placed wrongly. Please place all superscripts immediately after the punctuation marks, not before. Please see this in Wikipedia:Citing sources.
8. It is prefereble to use Template:Cite book, Template: Cite web, Harvard referencing etc. Also, please provide ISBN for all the books cited. In case of web sources, provide the access date. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Some of the books published in India do not contain ISBN. - Parthi^{talk/contribs} 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

   Yes. That's a problem with some of Indian books. Anyway, available ISBN numbers are to be given. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - agree with previous revewer about lead. Do you want to do it or others to help and have a go? Looks promising though...Cas Liber 19:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been taken care now. Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I will take care of the lead paragraph. If it is still unsatisfactory, go ahead and help out. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 21:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Lead- I have removed moved the lines recommended for removal and the reference notes to a more suitable location.Dineshkannambadi 22:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dinesh, I believe you wanted to write the word "moved" instead of "removed". Can you please verify again? Thanks. - KNM ^Talk 02:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply Sorry, I meant moved NOT removedDineshkannambadi 02:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment All the recommendations from the FAC review have been met. Please advice what needs to be done next.Dineshkannambadi 16:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

oops!! Kappe Arabhatta needs to be linked. Will do it soon.Dineshkannambadi 16:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some more comments

1)"The elephants were intoxicated prior to battle." - why?

comment This is mentioned with no real explanation. I can only guess that they were intoxicated to make them more aggressive. I have included citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

2)"At the lower levels of administration, the Kadamba style fully prevailed." - what is Kadamba style? (Hope I've not missed it if you have mentioned the style in some other part of the article)

The Kadambas were their early overlords. The Chalukyas just maintained their administrative methods, after overthrowing them. I have added more info regarding this with citation.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3)"Some kings had concubines (Ganikas) who were given much respect, sati was perhaps absent, as inscriptions speak of widows and devadasis' being present" - inscriptions speak of Devdasis and widows that's why it is concluded that Sati was perhaps absent? Also, Sati wikilinks to a disambiguation page. Please correct the link.

I have corrected wording structure and added citation. Sati now does not link to disambiguation page.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

4)Some more citations are probably needed in the section "Badami Chalukya Government"

I have taken care of this. Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

5)There are some instances of overwikilinking. For example, in the section "Periods in Chalukya history", Western Chalukyas has been wikilinked thrice, Deccan has been wikilinked five times. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed some repeat wikilinks to Deccan, Kadambas, Pulakesi I etc.Dineshkannambadi 02:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, I forgot to log in during previous replies to comments by Dwaipayan—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dineshkannambadi (talk • contribs) .

• Support very interesting read. Rama's arrow 17:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - Article on one of the prominent dynasties in Indian history. Peer review comments and FAC review comments/recommendations (mentioned above) have been incorporated. Would make a good FA. - KNM ^Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC) (minor contributor on the article)

• Strong Support - per above. Sarvagnya 02:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support - A well written article on a Indian History. -- Naveen ^(talk) 03:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - Section In popular culture is too short. Addition of some more relevant information would be appericiated. Shyam ^(T/C) 06:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work throughout the section. I strongly support it to be featured. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support - web links in "Notes" and "Citation" are still not upto the mark. All web sources should include all the detail available (author, publisher, publication date etc) as far as possible. Only a single line description of the web sources describing the heading of the article/report is ok in "External links", but not in Notes and References. --Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this.ThanksDineshkannambadi 13:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - All points raised were effectively addressed. Nice informative article.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph W. Tkach

This article has achieved GA, has gone through general Peer Review, and has achieved A-class in the Biography wikiproject. The comments from all three review boards have been implemented and additional improvements have been made by two anonymous editors. I submit it now as a FAC and I welcome your comments. RelHistBuff 10:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Overall, well written and well cited.
  • An incident changed him. Very short sentence that chops up the flow of that paragraph. Is there a better way to transition?
  • and he found himself miraculously cured. I'm not sure if I'm entirely comfortable with "miraculously" there...some readers might be led to think the article is stating that his cure was indeed a religious miracle. But that's just me.
  • Commas are a bit inconsistent: "In 1966 Tkach moved..." and "In March 1981, Armstrong appointed him". I'm a fan of commas, so I'd suggest putting them in like the latter example whenever you have a similar construct, but that's a stylistic preference.
  • In the late 1970s a period of disputes occurred... Disputes over what?
  • Since he was an American, I would suggest using American spellings. I saw "characterised", "baptised", "recognised", and "authorised". There may be others.
  • he was to eventually have split infinitive
  • wikilink "disfellowshipped", "Mosaic Law", "dietary laws"
  • the acceptance of the validity of other Christian denominations;[20] etc.. "etc." usually means the reader can infer what the rest of the list looks like. Not the case here though.
  • current Pastor General of the WCG Be careful when using "current". "Pastor General of the WCG as of 2006" may be better.

Gzkn 13:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I agreed with and implemented almost all of them. The prose comments were very helpful and I believe it flows better now. I clarified the type of disputes (leadership and financial), but I didn't add the details. I assume the reader can read more on that in the Stanley Rader article. I removed the whole clause current Pastor General of the WCG as the reader has already been introduced to Tkach Jr. and there is already an article on him. The footnote gives the source which is Tkach Jr.'s book. The only comment I hesitated on was the implemention of commas on introductory elements such as In 1966,. For some reason, it looked a little strange to me. I checked on some other manuals of style and it seems that for short elements that are non-ambiguous, the comma is optional. If the element tends to be long (one manual said more than five words), then a comma should be used. So what I did was to remove commas after short introductory elements, i.e., the ones with years and dates. However, I kept the commas for longer introductory elements such as In assessing the work of Tkach,. RelHistBuff 14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. You have my support. Gzkn 00:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Per my comments in the Bio peer-review.--Yannismarou 08:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music of the Lesser Antilles

I've been working on this article and its subarticles for a while now, and I think it's ready. It's a very interesting topic - includes calypso, for example, but also spans some more obscure subjects (Dutch Antillean music). Also, though the Lesser Antilles is often treated as a music area, this is more of a convenience than a real musicologically relevant division. Much of what unites the islands is shared with the non-Antillean Caribbean, and much of what separates them associates them with non-Antillean areas. Anyway, it is a common and useful division, and I think this article is about as good as it can be. Tuf-Kat 14:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very good article. I have a question, did any hip-hop, pop, rock etc. work its way to this islands, or are they isolated music wise? - Tutmosis 16:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, there's a bit of hip hop and such, but it's not especially important and is not really relevant to the "Lesser Antilles" as a unit. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wow, very well done. It would be nice if a picture could be found to appear alongside the introduction, though I'm unsure what sort of picture would be used. In any case, the article is well-written and well-referenced. —Cuiviénen 18:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A larger picture than the one's shown would be nice in the lead. HornetMike 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that pictures would help a lot here. I've been keeping my eye on free pics at Flickr and such, and will keep looking around for something better. Tuf-Kat 05:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pending The citations are not properly formatted. I strongly recommend using Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Mkdw^talk 06:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe this has been fixed. Joelito (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Citations such as: Manuel, pg. 208, and Cameron, pgs. 549 - 582 are the most referenced citations. These citations are invalid as they do not refer to anything and do not have enough information. Publisher, Date, Author, Title, ISBN (if possible). Otherwise these citations have no validity. Please track down this source so we may view it and check its information and credibility as a reliable source. Mkdw^talk 04:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I note that this article is categorised under "articles with invalid ISBNs". This isn't a big problem by any stretch of the imagination, but it might be worth checking out. MLilburne 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Joelito (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks Joelito! Tuf-Kat 00:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver

• Support this article is fairly comprehensive. It has several related articles for each of its category and seems to be quite accurate. Mkdw^talk 12:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object the wide panoramic pics wreaks havoc with screen displays. The external jumps in refs 37-40 need fixed. More later. Rlevse 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The linking for footnotes 37-40 seem to be intacted. I have adjusted the pannoramic pictures to be more size friendly. Mkdw^talk 05:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Still Object I done some sample refs for submitter and many refs are still not in standard format. Rlevse 00:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The article citations have been greatly improved, thanks to yours and many others efforts. The citations provided are in better shape than a good portion of the other FAs and are almost University acceptable, which are far beyond Wikipedia's standards. I noticed myself, along with some other people are having some troubles with the citations. The information is being input but the references are not showing all the details. Mkdw^talk 09:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations should be up to par now.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is well-written and my display at 1024x768 running IE6 doesn't have any problem with the images, although the view from chinatown does require scrolling to the right a bit to view the whole image. Users at lower screen resolutions may have problems with some of the images, as noted above. I'm also not experiencing any problems with the external links in the citations. Neil916 (Talk) 19:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

"The article seems in proportion using Mozilla and Safari at 1024x768. I have adjusted the Chinatown image to a more accommodating size. Mkdw^talk 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. A lot of red wikilinks because they point to articles which are not there. Either create stubs for those articles or remove the wikilinks. Mercenary2k 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  

The redlinks have been removed. Lily Towers^talk 10:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article needs very little work to be done and it appears that as the recommendations are coming in the article is being improved. As far as content, the article is well organized and complete. Mainly technical notes that need small alterations, but can be easily done. Langara College 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Objection — I only made it a third the way through the article, but I found several issues that I think need to be addressed:

• "In 1808, Simon Fraser arrived in what is now Marpole. He was searching for the Columbia River, but soon discovered that he was not in Columbia and was captured by natives." Was he looking for Columbia or the river? Wasn't he in B.C.? This needs to be clarified.

I looked into this. Simon Fraser was looking for the Columbia River but ended up exploring what is not known as the Fraser River. Both rivers are located in British Columbia. Colombia, South America has no relation to the river. I have changed "not in Columbia" to "not in the Columbia" for clarification. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That works.

• "A fire broke out on June 13, 1886. The city was quickly rebuilt, using bricks that time." The effects of the fire were what? Was the entire city razed?

This piece of information is a quick summary of the main article listed at the top of the section: History of Vancouver. I have included the extent of the damge to the city though. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The history section needs at least a paragraph to cover the entire 20th century.

Refer to History of Vancouver as listed as the main article in the History header at the top. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reader should not need to drill down to a sub-article in order to get a proper summary.:::::Article section has been greatly expanded. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The climate is wet..." suggest maritime or oceanic, rather than "wet".

Climate may refer to elevation, but in most cases it's definition falls to its first and most used term to describe weather, see climate. "Wet" in that case was used to refer to precipitation rather than its geographic location being surrounded by bodies of water. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be made clearer by using the word "weather" rather than "climate"?

I recommend climate be kept for lack of a better reason. The sentence has been changed to "The climate is moderate and experiences a high precipitation. The city is also surrounded by several bodies of water, rivers, lakes, and streams." As though climate is the best word describe 'weather over a long period of time, 30 years', it may also be used to describe degree. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As you wish. — RJH (talk)

• The "Flora" section is missing citations.
• "...reckoned to be..." is too folksy and lacks a citation.

section improved. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• What does "second and third growth" mean?

Second and third growth are used to describe a generation of trees. These terms are common in forestry. There technically exists no first growth category. When 'original trees' are cut down, or are destoyed by floods or fires, the next growth of trees are called second growth, etc. Mkdw^talk 01:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Since we're not all in the forestry business, it might be helpful for the lay reader if these terms were made clear (or at least linked to an explanatory article). Thanks. :-) — RJH (talk)

I'm not in the forestry industry, but that word is a very common word. Its usage is as common as Fir Tree. Logging and signs of logging is menioned in the same sentence and I belive most people will understand the concept simply from the sentence. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

By most people do you include somebody living in a desert region? Sorry I don't find that sufficient. These articles are read world-wide, so you can't expect that everybody will share your "common word" knowledge base. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few more and then I'll leave off:

• "twice the speed" => "twice the rate"

Done Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• "acre" is old English units. For consistency I'd also use km², as was done later in the article.

Canada still has a very odd mixture of units. Technically we are a metric country, but due to our legacy of people in Canada, baby boomers, who still use imperial, Canada is almost a go-between. Our close relationship to the United States also has that affect on our measurement system. Acres in this artcile could be kept with the km measurement in brackets as many area measurement documents, even government, show. Acre only shows up two times, the staticial one would not make sense as it was done in acres. You would ultimately be saying there are 49 people in ever 0.0001km². The km will be put in bracks for convience. Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the km to hectares, as methinks that's the relevant unit here. It's now consistent with other measurements in the article (metric first, imperial in brackets).Bobanny 01:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

That's all I was asking. Thanks. — RJH (talk)

• "Mayor Sullivan's Eco-Density initiative" is mentioned off-hand but not explained or linked.

Expanded Lily Towers^talk 20:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk)

• Two of the paragraphs in the "Demographics" section are unsourced, and I think they are in need of sourcing. These are the two paragraphs on the largest ethnic groups.

Seems to have been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Economy", "Politics" and "Architecture" sections are only sparsely referenced. The trade statistics at least should be easy to source.:* As a side note, the reason why Vancouver is such a popular cruise ship starting point is that for a long time foreign-owned cruise ships were banned from docking in Seattle for cruises drectly to Alaska.[5]

Thanks, this helps and will be included. Mkdw^talk 05:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• In "Sports and Recreation" paragraph 3, please use emdash instead of hyphens. Also when you list units in time, please clarify that this is driving time. (I know it's common sense, but some countries rely on different forms of transportation...)

The hyphens were eliminated in place of a better sentence structure. Mkdw^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I realize that most of these are nits, so my primary objection comes from the weak level of references in certain sections, particularly when facts and data are cited. Having a respectable number of references overall doesn't necessarily make this a well-referenced page. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed many of your observations are changes that are simple to make, and would be far less work to change them than to write an explination here. As a suggestion, you could change them and save the work as some of these suggestions are perhaps too specific to be notable in the judgement of a feature review. Mkdw^talk 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In a number of cases the intent of the author needed to be determined, so I wasn't about to make those changes. In others I lacked information that the article should have provided. But I have to respectfully disagree that a notability filter should be applied to a FA review. You're clearly posting under the premise that this is one of the best articles that WP has to offer. So I should expect to find zero issues with the content. :-) — RJH (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection — The flora section needs editing. For example, most of Vancouver wasn't covered in "temperate rainforest" prior to settlement(although this is a common idea). In fact, the average precipitation over most of the city is 40-60", not enough to qualify as temperate rainforest. Large, moist forests dominated the area, but most ecologists would not use the term "temperate rainforest" to describe an area with less than 80" of rain per year. True temperate rainforest can be found on the west coast of Vancouver Island, or futher north in places like North and West Vancouver which recieve precipitation in excess of 80" per year.24.84.208.246 00:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you have the location of Vancouver confused with other areas. The City of Vancouver is included in the Pacific temperate rain forests (the largest temerate rain forest zone on the planet). The Pacific Temperate Rain Forest stretches as far north as Alaska, through the Yukon, British Columbia, state of Washington, down as far south as northern California. Stanley Park is a 1000acre park in the middle of downtown Vancouver which is officially noted as a temperate rain forest. Vancouver Parks Board. Mkdw^talk 02:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you misread my post. I am aware that there are large tracts of temperate rainforest on the West Coast of North America, but there is not a continuous band of temperate rainforest stretching from Northern California to Alaska. Because most of the Lower Mainland of B.C. is protected to some degree by the mountains of Vancouver Island, it does not receive the full brunt of Pacific storm systems, and recieves about half the rainfall actually necessary to support a true "rainforest" ecosystem. This is a generalization of course. Some areas of Greater Vancouver, such as North Vancouver and West Vancouver get heavy enough rainfall to qualify.24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We can't say this without a citation. It would appear to be original research, especially if the source contraticts with what you say. -- Selmo ^(talk) 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, though I am one of the editors who improved the article. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  
• Support - Vancouver has several articles, many of which are extensions of sections are they have become to elaborate. The article is well referenced and accurate. The article has been changed to accommodate the oppositional points for improvement. Also many of the oppositional points are invalid as responded to. Vancouver's original forest bed and categorization as a temperate rain forest cannot be solely based upon rain fall accounts today. It does also state, as Mkdw said, that its categorized by the Vancouver Parks Board as a rain forest. The other points such as 'wet' and Colombia versus Columbia are not correct and do not warrant with-holding this article as a featured article. Lily Towers^talk 10:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

But rainfall IS the indicating factor here. Should we state that the dry oak meadows of southern Vancouver Island and parts of Puget Sound are "rainforests" simply because they are located on the west coast? They are not. Nor is most of Vancouver city proper. Are we not striving for accuracy here, rather than popular conception?24.84.208.246 19:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The article does not claim "all" of Vancouver was rainforest, so there is room for those drier spots. Again, the offending sentence is not referring to modern day Vancouver. There's nothing inaccurate about that sentence and the issue is not about "popular conceptions," but about an accepted classification.Bobanny 21:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The dominant tree throughout most of the city of Vancouver prior to human settlement was Douglas Fir. This is not consistent with a "temperate rainforest" ecosystem. Thus, Vancouver is not and never has been dominated by a temperate rainforest ecosystem in the scientifically ACCEPTED sense. Parts of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, yes. Much of the exposed coastline of British Columbia, yes. Downtown Vancouver and areas south of that? For the most part, NO. If you want to change the article to say that "Parts of Greater Vancouver once supported a temperate rainforest ecosystem" then please be my guest. In fact parts of the region still DO support such an ecosystem. But the city itself, as I have tried to explain, never did, in terms of an "accepted classification", and I think that the article needs to be accurate.24.84.208.246 23:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests actually specifies that a temperate rainforest must receive 2,000 mm of precipitation at a bare minimum in order to qualify! Again, Vancouver city proper does not come close to qualifying in this respect. Certain select parts of Greater Vancouver may qualify, but that doesn't justify a blanket statement in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.84.208.246 (talk • contribs) .

Could you please provide some references to back up your statement as you do not have any to support your argument compared to several citations provided by the City of Vancouver in that section. Furthermore, there is no recorded levels of rain fall in the time, 'original' forest, as talked about in that particular section. This argument is highly esoteric, possibly incorrect under original research without citation, to with hold an article from Featured status. 142.35.144.2 23:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not an ecologist, but as a Wikipedian, that sentence is up to snuff, has a citation, and isn't a good sticking point for an FAC evaluation. You write as if you know something about this stuff, 24.84.208.246, so if you're correct, it shouldn't be too hard for you to at least hint at a source more convincing than the City of Vancouver. As it stands, 'unregistered, anonymous Wikipedia user' is not a credible source, even if you do manage to win the debate here. And as a counter-sidenote, that same Wikipedia article on temperate rainforests does list Douglas fir as indigenous to temperate rainforests.Bobanny 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Was about to say the same thing. Anon has not yet provided a source for his argument, plus he dosen't have an account. As far as I'm concerned, Vancouver is a temperate rain forest, since that's what it says in the only citation provided so far. Arguing that it makes no scientific sense without providing a reference can easily be seen as original research. Who says this? Is it published in any reliable journal or website? Ironically, saying Vancouver is NOT a rainforest would mean this FAC would be less sucessful. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying Vancouver should not be a featured article, simply that asserting that the city was once a temperate rainforest is inaccurate. Here are some sources for precipitation requirements: http://www.wtrc.org/temprainforests.htm ... http://davesgarden.com/terms/go/2897/ ... http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/biomes/rainforest/temp_rain/temprain.html . The LOWEST of them say 60 inches...your own Wikipedia article cites 80 inches as the minimum requirement. In any case, the City of Vancouver gets an average of about 48 inches (again according to your own article - Environment Canada actually says 43 inches or so...in any case a good 20 inches less than even the very lowest estimates as to required precipitation). As for Douglas Firs, of course they exist in the temperate rainforest, but are they dominant? Again, I am not against featured article status, I just think that particular item should be changed to say something like "Parts of Greater Vancouver are..." rather than "Vancouver was once..." if you get my drift.24.84.208.246 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well you did "object" to Vancouver being a featured article so I wouldn't say you didn't when its written above =P. The davesgarden is a personal website and the definition written there is by a user called Terry (which cannot be counted as a credible source). I looked into your source The Rain Forest Atlas which on its map lists the area of Vancouver as a "developed rain forest" and "coastal temperate rain forest". Furthermore none of these articles have anything to do with the original state of Vancouver before settlement or developement. Stanley Park is the only forested area in Vancouver, to which is labelled a National Park and temperate rain forest. I agree Vancouver could not be called one as it is a city, mainly made from metal and concrete, but then again that's not what the statement says. Unless more evidence from notable sources (Oxford or Websters English Dictionary, Canadian Government, City of Vancouver, Universities) these current sources listed by you are countered by more credible sources and even some of your sources support our argument. Thank you for your efforts though. Mkdw^talk 04:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

According to my source, Douglas Fir didn't dominate, but rather it was a mix of tree types, including Douglas Firs, and others, like the Sitka Spruce, that apparently are typical of temperate rainforests. Bobanny 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support What Lily Towers said. 142.35.144.2 00:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support What a great article, I honestly feel it's a lot 'tighter' than Ann Arbor, Michigan, which I used for comparison here. Just a few, very minor issues:

• More citations in the Economy subsection, please. I think you should have a reference for each statistic you give - regardless of whether these are cited in the main Economy of Vancouver article.

I believe this has been addressed.Bobanny 09:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the Economy subsection: The 1986 World Exposition was held in Vancouver. This World's Fair was the last to be held in North America and was considered a success. Just seems a little abrupt - maybe one sentence more to round it off.

I've expanded the last sentence to end the section smoothly. -- Selmo ^(talk) 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• And again in the Economy subsection: It should be noted that a number of municipalities in British Columbia within 2-3 hours from Vancouver, such as Whistler, Victoria, and Langley, have average house prices... I linked Whistler and Victoria, but I'm not sure if you mean this Langley or this one.

I've taken care of this 205.250.109.113 20:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I also removed Whistler from the list of average priced housing sectors as Whistler is now among some of the most expensive and desired areas to buy property. Primarily due to the massive expansion of Whistler in the last 20 years making it a world class resort as well as the 2010 Olympics. Mkdw^talk 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you can probably tell that I'm nitpicking :) It's a fantastic article, good work, everybody. Those were the only minor things I could think of that I couldn't clean up myself - I did a bit of spellcheck and some punctuation changes to make it flow better. riana_dzasta 10:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Concerns - many of the points raised by Tony1 in the first FAC and Never_Mystic in the second FAC have not been answered. Could an experienced contributor go over these and attempt to rectify them? riana_dzasta 16:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of Never Mystics's concerns have been taken care of. Just a couple more things. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes they have, and thanks for your support vote and recommendations. =) Mkdw^talk 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support very thorough, lots of refs. - Mike | Talk 05:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support complete and detailed article with many good and on topic subpages. The citations have been greatly improved. 24.80.158.47 09:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support this article has very good refs, very informative. Dan M 02:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object Although the article is well referenced and the use of summary style is commendable, the article is overall too long. Here are some specific objections:
  • The article is comparable in size to featured article cities.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does have a size recommendation for the express reason of encouraging articles to be divided into subpages. The WikiFoundation has recognized that some articles cannot meet these size recommendations. Vancouver is a complex article covering a huge amount of topics while still trying to give a comprehensive breakdown of all its areas, subpages, and signficant content. The 32kb size recommendation has been void in many cases such as this, as you can clearly see on many other featured articles. Any reduction in many of the articles of this article would mean a loss of integrity. Mkdw^talk 09:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. Acronyms such as BC, US, RCMP, COPE, VVN, NPA should not be used. If they are used, they sound be appropriately introduced: e.g. "British Columbia (BC)"
     • I've fix some of the acronyms you've suggested. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • And I fixed the rest (think I got them all). I checked, and the Wiki style guide permits acronyms, but with the intro you suggested.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. The prose is flaccid. Statements need to be sharpened, words need to be pared, ideas need stronger connections. In short, it needs a good copyedit. For example, "In more modern times, other industries have become proportionately more significant, such as film production; Vancouver is the third largest centre for US-based productions after Los Angeles and New York, earning it the nickname Hollywood North;" "Some actions have be taken by various levels of government to limit the problem." Too colloquial in places: "Those unfamiliar with the region may be surprised to learn that Vancouver is not on Vancouver Island;" "The city's popularity comes with a price." The article is filled with little errors of grammar, punctuation and word choice.
  3. The intro is much too long.
     • The intro was expanded in response to other reviewers who said the opposite. Again, it's comparable to the introductions for other cities.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • The introduction is comparable size-wise to many other featured articles. Using other featured articles for comparison is the recommended approach. Mkdw^talk 09:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. History: too long, and does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts! What about Vancouver's recent massive population growth as an immigrant hub for the Pacific Rim? What are the causes, what was the effect on the city?
     • Recent history, such as Vancouver becoming a hub for Pacific Rim immigration, is covered elsewhere in the article. The history section was also expanded following comments from reviewers. Are there perhaps items in the history section that are not significant enough for inclusion in your opinion?Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC) It also doesn't seem to be out of line with other cities, including featured ones (Detroit's is much longer for example, apparently because its history section does go up to the present). As for content, it covers the formative years of the city, which is the most important for a history section to cover, IMO (it does go into the 1930s, btw: 1929 is just the last date mentioned).Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • As you said, this article could be shorter and to reduce the size the History of Vancouver was created to be a more complete and comprehensive article. If you wanted to include all of Vancouver's history on the page you would be increasing its size by almost a 1/5th. Mkdw^talk 09:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Geography: shorten.
     • It's not much longer than other sections, and it seems to me that geography is one of the more notable features of the city. Again, perhaps if you indicate what you believe to be insignificant information, this would be easier to act on.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • The geography of Vancouver is responsible for Vancouver's tourism industry, hosting the 2010 Winter Olympics, ranking among the top five World's Most Livable Cities, second largest film production center, third-largest US-base for productions, second largest port in North America, and forth largest cruise ship terminus. All those reasons naturally makes the geography section the largest and most important to the article. Mkdw^talk 09:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Demographics: perhaps it would be worthwhile to mention that the Chinatown is, if I recall correctly, the second largest in North America, after San Francisco?
     • New York, Toronto, and other large cities have more extensive Chinatown's than Vancouver due to their larger population sizes. Although it is rumoured that Vancouver's Chinatown per capita is the second largest in the world, much of 'Chinatown' has dispursed to other areas such as Richmond. Mkdw^talk 09:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
     • I removed this recently when going through the article to add citations. A google search indicated that there is no consensus on this point (Toronto and New York are also given this status in various places). Moreover, the sites that came up were primarily tourist-type sites. Granted, I didn't spend a lot of time hunting down the info, partly because I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that a previous version of the Vancouver article seemed obsessed with ranking. That there's a lot of Chinese people in Vancouver is covered elsewhere.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Education: the first paragraph only tells you about the administrative structure of schools in Vancouver, it says little about the actual schools. Perhaps mention the locations of UBC and SFU, which are interesting and relevant (as it is, it could be interpreted to say that only the satellite campuses are in Vancouver proper, which is not true for UBC).
     • The main UBC is technically its own municipality, governed by a board of governors, not the civic administration of Vancouver proper.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • Well I'll be damned! –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Architecture: the skyline section is actually quite interesting, though could use an edit. The rest seems like an aimless list of interesting buildings in the city. It needs some sort of narrative structure, either in terms of architectural style, chronology, or something.
     • Narrative is a very unconventional style of encyclopedic format that often leads to POV issues. Remember that this article is based upon an informational motivation rather than interesting reading. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
       • Actually, I think you would find that a majority of people on FAC would like the FAs to be both informational and interesting reading. –Joke 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Arts and culture: principally seems like an aimless listing of attractions. Needs narrative structure.
     • Again, narrative is highly uncommon for encyclopedic articles often leading to POV issues. This article is for informational and research purposes rather than interesting reading. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Sports: as with the rest of the article, cut down on lists like: "The 18 kilometres (11 miles) of beaches that surround Vancouver include English Bay (First Beach), Jericho, Kitsilano Beach, Locarno, Second Beach (Stanley Park), Spanish Bank East, Spanish Bank Extension, Spanish Bank West, Sunset, and Third Beach (Stanley Park)." The table "Professional sports teams" needs to relate to some text, and the table "Former professional sports teams" could probably go into the daughter article.
      • I've taken care of the sports portion of the section. -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Media: a list without context or information about the papers. Either remove the section or say something substantive.
      • Wikipedia is based on the foundation of creating an internal linking of all its articles. There is a complete article about media in Vancouver on a separate article. Removing the media section will elminate the means to reaching that related article. Also this article needs to be shortened, thus the point of creating separate articles to handle various sections. Mkdw^talk 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Isn't it part of the MOS that external links should be avoided inside the main body of the article? (e.g. the links to "From Grief to Action and Keeping the Door Open")
      • I was slapped on the hand by User:Carson Lam for changing them to refs. -- Selmo ^(talk) 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The way it is now conforms to the Wiki style guide.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Are people likely to care about such things as: "In 2006, the police department established its own Counter Terrorism Unit, which led to speculation of a rift between the Vancouver Police and the RCMP because the latter normally handles national security matters" or "Air quality measurements for the Lower Fraser Valley, including Vancouver, are updated and published every hour online by the Greater Vancouver Regional District." Why are they included? Is it just by chance that some editor happened to add them randomly, or are they signficant enough that they ought to be included? If so, it is not obvious from the article.
      • I'm not sure why you feel these are less significant than the other information in the article.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Why would someone in, say, Austria care about random, possibly unfounded speculation? And most cities have hourly weather and air quality reports. It's no big deal. Why is this so surprising? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I can't imagine someone in Austria caring about policing in Vancouver at all, let alone reading about it here. Still, the Mounties are one of the most famous, and perhaps the most recognizable, police forces in the world (tourists have been known to feel cheated coming to Canada and finding that the mountie pulling them over for speeding isn't wearing the red serge, let alone riding a horse). The rift between the Van police and RCMP may not be true (which is why it says "speculation"), but the foundation for that speculation is stated. It could go into more detail, and say that there is a multi-departmental unit headed by the Mounties for terrorism that the VPD seems to be bypassing or replicating, but expanding this point with more detail would make it more prominent than it deserves in my judgment. Is real or perceived rivalry between federal and local police interesting? American cop shows and movies have certainly exploited the entertainment value of this phenomenon, and the mythology that Canadians are not prone to conflict makes it more interesting in this context. It is also suggestive in relation to the larger turf struggle between provincial/local government and the feds. In terms of what makes something interesting about a city like Vancouver, to me and others I believe, is how it relates to the larger contexts in which it and its inhabitants exist, in this case, Vancouver/BC, Van, BC/Canada, Van, Canada/US, and Van, North America/the world. Encyclopedia articles can be engagingly written, yes, but they are also a compendium of information that is often mundane, such as the pronunciation of Vancouver or its population, total precipitation, administrative structure, what kind of trees grow there, the state of its air quality, and so on. Much of this information is neither surprising, nor a big deal, and readers uninterested in certain details generally skip over them. I still couldn't tell you the latitude and longitude of Vancouver even though I've looked at this page a kazillion times.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. In general, it reads much like a tourist brochure. I wish it had more flow and would not introduce so much jargon and so many acronyms that are unlikely to be understood – or of interest! – to the average reader, like "EcoDensity", "AirCare", "smart growth", meaningless PR-speak like "fostering public dialogue." A more encyclopedic tone would help tremendously.
      • I disagree. Most of those things refer to public policy that thousands of people are subjected to whether or not they have cheezy names. (Air Care testing is mandatory, for example). EcoDensity is there to illustrate a government policy to increase urban density. I agree they are cornball, booster, jargon, but they are important to the city. As for "fostering public dialogue," that's what those groups do and what their mandate is. I don't find it's anything more than descriptive, yet more elegant than saying that they "go around encouraging people to talk about the drug issue."Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I've explained "AirCare" and "EcoDensity". I'm not sure about smart growth, since it has it's own article (and not Vancouver specific). -- Selmo ^(talk) 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I also strongly disagree. I feel that personal feelings towards this article have made many of your arguments invalid. "meaningless PR=speak" is your own personal oppinion. If you wish to remove those words, you must find more relevent and significant words with proper references that are both notable and credible. Saying you dislike them has no importance to the article or this review. Also you bring up the point that this article lacks narration and is un-interesting. The point of an encyclopedia is to have comprehensive written compendiums that contain information. Novels on the other hand have the express purpose of being interesting to readers. Novels and encyclopedia are not the same and whether a reader is interested or not has no importance to the goal and mandate of an encyclopedia. Also, interest is a relative concept in that one reader may not be interested in physics where the next might be. It would be extremely illogical to change an article and perhaps its relevent terms just to make it 'interesting' for the user who dislikes physics. Please keep this in mind on your future reviews. Mkdw^talk 09:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. What's with the ampersands? Write out "and."
      • I purged the ampersands.Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Nothing is mentioned about food and cuisine. Vancouver is a manifestly food-crazy city.
      • I'm not sure why you think this; most cities are food-crazy in terms of having lots of restaurants and a variety of dining options. I removed a comment about there being 300 sushi restaurants because there was no citation and I didn't find one, and I don't personally find that an interesting statistic, since the article does cover cultural diversity, and I'm sure there's many more Starbucks and McDonalds anyway.Bobanny 06:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I think you'll find that Vancouver is a little different than most cities. Certainly, it has a reputation across the US and Canada for having an extremely competitive restaurant market, with great ethnic food and relatively low prices. On the other hand, it may be that there is nothing verifiable and notable enough to add. –Joke 17:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't get me wrong. I actually quite like this article and think that with some major editing and minor organizational work it could be FA worthy. Right now, it is not. I think the main point that needs work is: what would someone who is completely unfamiliar with Vancouver find interesting about the city? The names of the newspapers and beaches and the school district number are unlikely to be it. They would find its history and evolution interesting. The fact that there are no freeways through the city is interesting. The fact that it is a city with a very high quality of living and high rents is interesting. The fact that it is in a temperate rainforest is interesting. The progressive politics and large gay community are interesting. The music scene is interesting. Etcetera. There is plenty to put in the article, and much of it is already there, but it doesn't yet sparkle! –Joke 03:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Bobanny 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. However, I disagree with the comment that this article requires "major editing" to be FA ready. Relative to the other city FAs, Vancouver is ahead in many aspects. While Wikipedia has high standards for quality, especially for its FAs, the details put forth and constructively criticized by you are beyond those expectations. No article will be perfect and every article will have room for improvement from any source. A featured article is a standard put forth by Wikipedia and this article stands with in those recommendations and requirements. The detail to which you speak of would fail most of the articles that are already FAed. Mkdw^talk 09:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

Size

I'm not arguing for the 32kb size limitation. I'm arguing that as it is, the article is too long and could be pared considerably. The text just doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.

We're working on this, but many of our editors feel that the recommendations to extend and elaborate this article are more important than its size issues. We are working to reduce its size. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

History and demographics

It is absurd to say that just because the history section is long already, you can't cover most of the twentieth century. The History of Vancouver article doesn't cover this era either. Most of the city's history has been ignored completely. In addition to writing something about this era, I would encourage you to consider adding a graph of Vancouver's population growth (I haven't seen one, but I imagine it could be quite informative) and possibly a table showing Vancouver's demographic makeup.

It's not 'absurb'. We are attempting to shorten this article to a more managable size as recommended by you and several other people. However, we on the opposite side from you and those same people are saying to extend the article. This will simply be a case where both recommendations can be precisely improved, but not ultimately satisfied. Sorry. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Chinatown

Fair enough (although I don't understand how a Chinatown can be second largest "per capita"). New York's Chinatown is one of the major centres for Chinese-Americans, but not many can afford to live there (at least with anything resembling a normal standard of living) any more, and many have been displaced to Queens. I don't think that New York's Chinatown is at all comparable to Vancouver's, but I could be mistaken. Still, this issue aside, I don't think the article gives a clear impression of the scope of the effect that the massive influx of Chinese immigrants has had on the city.

The way per-captia works is that Chinatown Vancouver in a local with in the City of Vancouver which has roughly over 500,000 people. The measurement would be done in population density, commercial enterprise and relating businesses owned or operated by Chinese-Canadians and thus compared to the rest of the overall population. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrative

Look narrative up in a dictionary. It's what seperates an encyclopedia from a mere random agglomeration of facts. Right now many of the sections have little structure, where you are left with the feeling that one sentence has no relation whatsoever to the next. This is critically bad in the "architecture," and "arts and culture" sections, but it needs work almost throughout the entire article. This has nothing to do with writing a novel.

Well, in fairness to this response. All defintions of narrative and narration do not support this argument. Narrative has very few meanings: A narrated account; a story.^[3] I would not categorize this article as "mere random agglomeration of facts" and I also feel that that comment is not beneficial to this review. If indeed this were the case, creating a narrative would not resolve this issue. The correct definition of an encycopedia mentions no such mandate to create an interesting piece of work, but rather: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. ^[4]Comprehensive in this case, as an adjective, meaning a broad coverage of all topics. Mkdw^talk 20:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the OED has the perfect definition: "An account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them." That is precisely what I think is done poorly in parts of this article. We are not judging FA's by the dictionary definition of "encyclopedia." We are judging them by the FA criteria. In this case, I believe Vancouver fails 1(a). –Joke 21:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that an article should not be well written and comprehensive. Narration can be problematic in many cases causing the unnecessary expansion and size of the article with out contributing to the article in means relevent to an encyclopedia. Many point of view issues arise with narration in the form of tone, word choice, perspective, and that narrative is usually defined as an account (singular). By keeping this article out of narrative it allows for a more factual presence in its content. A clean precise article with out being overly and unnecessarily wordy is preferable. Articles can still be 'well written' with out narration. On a side note, my copy of the 2006 OED does not have the same definition you quoted above. Mkdw^talk 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, you have to be careful when writing an article to ensure that tone, word choice and perspective are in accordance with NPOV. To say that these points prohibit narrative, however, is spurious. It merely means that you need to exercise care not to introduce any novel interpretations. Incidentally, I think there was such a thing in the previous intro, where Vancouver's high homeless population was associated with high rents. (There is no 2006 edition of the OED. Perhaps you are using one of the other Oxford dictionaries. My source was the online edition, which includes draft entries. I don't, however, believe that "narrative" has been updated in some time.) –Joke 00:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jargon

Writing an encyclopedia article is indeed different from writing a press release, political speech, urban planning study, brochure, travel guide or list of links. It is also, as you noted above, different from writing a novel. Try to avoid introducing jargon unless it is absolutely necessary, and use clear and precise English terminology. Don't use extra words. Look at some of the stuff I removed when I rewrote the intro: "Recent development strategies have increased Vancouver’s greenspace." I have no idea what that means. Does that mean there are new parks? Does that mean existing parks are being better used? Private developers are setting aside more land for public spaces? The definition of greenspace has been changed? What is greenspace anyways? Is it more precise than "park"? Or: "The city has been selected to co-host the 2010 Winter Olympics along with nearby Whistler, influencing economic development because of government spending to build infrastructure and venues, and also because of escalating realty values associated with Olympics fever." Why "escalating realty values"? Is this the same as "increasing real estate prices"? "Olympics fever"? Is that a medical term?

The use of fever has been in the North American vocabulary for quite some time. It's actually listed among the various definitions of the word in conjunction with an object. The term came to popular use during the Gold Rush, where 'gold rush fever'. Defined as an: -verb (used with object) intense nervous excitement: The audience was in a fever of anticipation. ^[5]. Green space is another word found in the dictionary: a plot of undeveloped land separating or surrounding areas of intensive residential or industrial use that is maintained for recreational enjoyment. ^[6]. For lack of a better word, values is the most accurate in this case. Realty prices and realty values are two different words that have separate, but similar relations. Prices refers to a direct numerical sum placed upon a piece of property or land. Values on the other hand refers not only to numerical values but property, personal, investment including overseas investment and interest. Both are related to numerical sums in that usually when overseas investment and interest increases, so does the numerical value of the property. To describe the increase of interest in a place such as investment we look at value. While prices are increasing the value has a life of its own. Many investors are expecting (this is only speculation) that the Vancouver "buble" will pop and thus there is developing a hestitation to further investment. Also many of the apartments in Yaletown are owned by overseas owners and are holding them for investment purposes, thus increasing the property price, but not the value as other related businesses are finding those areas not as invaluable since many of them sit empty. It should definitely be elaborated in the Demographics of Vancouver, but that is another article for another day. As long as we stick to regulations of WP:NEO the most appriopriate words are our best asset to creating a well informed article and leave the finer details to the subarticle. Mkdw^talk 20:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest you think about the tone of your responses? Suggesting that I'm writing my suggestions are invalid because of my "personal feelings about the article" is nonsensical. Of course, they're my opinion, but I think they're opinions about how to write encyclopedic prose shared by many other FAC reviewers and a large body of thought about English writing. Look at Strunk and White or Politics and the English Language or The Economist's style guide? –Joke 16:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of people have put a lot of time and energy into this article and at times there seems to be no end to this FAC process, so perhaps some frustration is unfairly coming across that predates your feedback. That said, some of your comments have been worded very sharply with the liberal use of adjectives like "flaccid," "meaningless," and "aimless" to describle the article. If any of us could write like George Orwell, I'm sure we'd be out writing best selling novels that could change the world instead of editing Wikipedia. As it is, the article has been a collaboration over a considerable time by people from a variety of backgrounds, ages, levels of formal and informal education, and world views. Even with this mix, I don't think it's unreasonable to claim that the article, as it stands, could hold its own next to a commercially produced encyclopedia; it shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that the implication that the quality is atrocious and we need lessons on the fundamentals of English-language writing might not be well taken. Your feedback generally has been thoughtful, constructive, and I think well-intended, and so far has led to improvements, but some of it has also been vague and comes across as subjective value-judgments that are more provocative than helpful.Bobanny 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my frustration earlier, it was unprofessional nor constructive. My responses were to many of comments that appear to also be highly unconstructive: "doesn't feel like any effort has been put towards concision.", "does the history really end in 1929? That's nuts!", "unlikely to be understood – or of interest!", "meaningless PR-speak", "Is that a medical term?". We can both work on the tone of our comments and I will try my best to look objectively at these points. Perhaps a note to all editors and reviewers is to keep the interest of the article at hand before personal interest and bias. It is my own strong oppinion to keep this article as encyclopedic as possible and keeping our responsibility to this encyclopedia by fulfilling its definition. Some of the points of removing sections, appropriate words, information for the sake of interest is something I will campaign against as that is going against express purpose of an encyclopedia as defined by several sources including this own encyclopedia. Creating an interesting article would be beneficial though, but not at the cost of losing information. Hopefully we will be able to come to a concensus with out reducing the integrity of this article. Mkdw^talk 20:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I appreciate your frustration. It is hard to get an article to FA status. I know that because I have tried and failed to do so in the past. I agree that my comments can sound deprecatory. I'm sorry, and that is not my intent. It is my intent is to express clearly and honestly what I think the flaws of the article are, and how I think it can be improved. I certainly don't think the article is atrocious, but I do think it needs a thorough, dispassionate copyediting and, as I have said, more narrative structure. I looked at the two most recently promoted featured articles for cities – San Francisco and Belgrade – and frankly, I think they are much better than this article, for many of the reasons I have outlined.

I'm not trying to assert that you need lessons on the fundamentals of the English language. Most people are bad writers. Most Wikipedia editors, myself included, are mediocre writers. We could all stand to improve by reading well written things and thinking about our own writing. There's a big difference between writing a grammatically correct sentence and writing prose that is compelling, even brilliant. –Joke 22:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing this since Summer. It get more difficult, after all the effort into this article after replying to objections, it seems as though there is no end. If Orwell quality article we're to become the standards for FAs, there wouldn't be alot of them. Most of us aren't professional writers. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support A very thorough and well-researched article. I may have lived in Vancouver for the past 18 some odd years, but I've still found new and interesting facts throughout the article. Definitely worth Featured article status. smileydude66 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Objection Someone included this in the main Vancouver article transportation section:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s. Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

The last sentence is pure opinion and should be removed, whether it is cited or not. This is a bone of contention in the city. For example, I live in Vancouver and my opinion (and those of many others I know) is that the lack of a freeway system, coupled with the lack of an efficient transit system, reduces the livability as it takes far too long to move around the city. Provided you don't need to travel outside of your neighborhood, the lack of a freeway is good. However for most of us who live there it is not the case. Just to travel 5 Km between Vancouver and North Vancouver can take up to an hour because of the poor road system.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is, that the last sentence should be removed so as to read like this:

"City councils, as part of a long term plan, prohibited the construction of freeways in the 1980s."

This is fact pure and simple.

This should be removed:

"Because of this, Vancouver surpassed Melbourne as the world's most livable city.[83]"

It is someone's opinion. comment left by User:Theshowmecanuck.

Removed. -- Selmo ^(talk) 01:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support EXCELLENT article, good job workong on it guys. Stormscape 04:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support great and conprehensive. Lot of facts.Canadianshoper 05:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support despite some very knit-picky objections, I feel this article in comparison to other featured articles is in excellent shape. 24.81.192.195 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

[edit] Glynn Lunney

Self-nomination. This article reached GA status at the beginning of September; it has been significantly expanded since then. It has been through a peer review by the Biography WikiProject, and I have taken all of the suggestions made there. MLilburne 10:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article. It's a good read with a sensible structure, there are many public-domain pictures that illustrate important events in Lunney's career, and it's definitely well-referenced in terms of both quality and quantity of sources. I made a few minor grammatical changes, but nothing that would have kept me from supporting this candidate had these slight problems still existed. -- Kicking222 15:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support very well done. Rlevse 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Pending Support: An obviously important person who deserves a full article, but I have some concerns that I feel stand between what is at present and what should be. I never quite get a sense of the summary conclusion that would leave a reader with a full sense of the historical importance of the man. Additionally, here are some generally minor problems that should be addressed:
  1. Nasa career: There is a tiny paragraph that seems to be floating. The text says that Lunney's "first job" was measuring reentry profiles, but we have to assume that this was his first job at NASA? Was NASA even organized at that point? How did he join the agency? This is before "Mercury" and "Gemini," which make more sense, so we need some additional material to explain this brief bit. E.g. "Lunney's first job out of college was for X (USAF? the newly designated NASA? we learn later that it's NACA? what?), where he worked studying the problem of reentry heating...."
  2. Gemini: It's interesting that he chose black as the team color, but is it pertinent? If we don't get the context for this decision and significance, it's probably extranneous information.
  3. Apollo: the article says that he was in charge of the boilerplate tests at White Sands. Would that make him involved in the "plugs out" test that was a disaster for Apollo 1? One way or another, the Apollo 1 tragedy had to have had an effect on his career, so that's sort of a gap.
  4. Apollo: "His Black team" is a bit chummy and informal, as well as grammatically incorrect (either Black Team or black-team or "black team"); it's probably best just to say "his team of X."
  5. Space Shuttle: "tasked with": I don't want to meddle, but "tasked with" is pretty gauche to my ears. Can't we use one of the many alternatives?
  6. Personal life: Big, big tense shift. I had to look up at the top of the lead again to make sure Lunney wasn't dead, as he was now in the past tense with his pleasures, for example.
• Again, though, in the end, I wish that a conclusion gave me more conclusions to take with me about the man and his career. Geogre 17:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. I will merge the "early life" and "NACA career" sections so as to make the structure more self-explanatory.
2. He was not involved in the Apollo 1 plugs-out test, and as far as I can tell wasn't around Mission Control at the time. In fact, there isn't very much information available about Lunney and the fire, so I didn't discuss it. I could provide a paragraph, but it would be a largely negative one, with only a couple of short quotes. Would you like me to see what I can put together? Actually, I see how I can work it in. Stand by.
3. Some readers may remember from the Apollo 13 movie that Gene Kranz's team was the White team, which in fact has its own Wikipedia article. (A very bad one, to be sure.) It may be trivia; I thought it was interesting trivia, but will take it out if you feel it's particularly problematic.
4. Fair point. It's not all that relevant. I've taken it out.
5. Changed this.
6. Have tried to shift this more into the present tense. Does it look better now?

Finally, yes, I would like to be able to draw more conclusions about the historical importance of Glynn Lunney. Unfortunately I'm limited to what the secondary sources have said (and I've studied them pretty thoroughly), so I don't want to go introducing any editorializing into the article. Some of the lack of long-term perspective is probably due to the fact that this is very recent history and he is still living. I hope you understand. MLilburne 17:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Folded reply: I understand, of course, about the need to remain within citable conclusions, but I worry that we're so compelled now to stick to them that we neglect our function as critical synthesis. An encyclopedist does get to synthesize and draw some conclusions based on facts that have been or can be carefully cited. For example, and this is not a suggestion, one could easily conclude that Glynn Lunney is one of the driving forces behind the development of NASA's manned space flight program, from its inception to the Space Shuttle. Such a conclusion locates the man in the world, gives the reader some capsule to walk off with, and is pretty inarguable. At any rate, it was a perceived need. About #3: I'm sure you're right about the white team, but it seems like either we need a header or sentence setting up "Development of the black and white teams" to let us know that this was an important functional division within mission control (not just a name or a gaming clan, so to speak), or, if it's to be in passing, a simple "Lunney was responsible for the fact that his group would be called the Black Team within NASA's mission control," just so it doesn't give the appearance of a tossed in kitchen sink. If I have more to suggest, I'll do it on the talk page.

Thank you for elaborating. I take your point about the Black team reference, and will remove it, as I can see that it doesn't add all that much for the article. I also do see what you're getting at in terms of critical synthesis. The example that you used, although not a suggestion, does come fairly close to the truth. I will think about what sort of general summation I can offer to the reader. Any other comments that you have will, of course, be gratefully received. MLilburne 21:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have tried to include a little more assessment of Lunney's importance in historical context. Let me know if this is what you were looking for. MLilburne 21:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: We are in an age of explorers, and yet we are paying as little attention to them as the first age did. Articles like this may help us avoid the problems contemporary scholars have with knowing anything about Cortes and Verazano. Geogre 19:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article! I really enjoyed it and this does not happen to me very often!--Yannismarou 19:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Definitely. A great example of an interesting, informative, and well-cited article about a notable, living person. Cla68 10:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

For previous nomination see here.

[edit] History of Solidarity second nomination

I am resubmitting this article to FAC after addressing concerns (layout, copyedit - thank you, User:Logologist!) raised during the past nomination. I have also asked for an External peer review to assess the concerns raised by some editors (propaganda, unnecessary POV fork). While I have not received a permission to post the information on who has reviewed the article (I am still waiting for reply on that, for now I can say that he is a professor at a US university and has published a major book on this subject), I believe I am allowed to post an opening sentence from his review emailed to me: "Overall: exhaustively reserarched, thorough in coverage." I have of course addressed all issues from that review as well. Therefore I sincerly believe the article is now FA-level.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I suggest a rephrasing with the transferring of what Solidarity is closer to the article name. --Brand спойт 18:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I follow your advice. The first para of the lead notes in the first sentence it was a Polish non-governmental trade union, and in the second and third elaborates on other important characteristics. How more 'closer' to the article's name (at the top of the page) can you get?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • E.g. like that: "The history of Solidarity, a Polish non-governmental trade union, began in August 1980 at the Gdańsk Shipyards, where Lech Wałęsa and others formed the union". --Brand спойт 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, reworded.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Full. I am particularly glad to note that the external (and professional) peer review encourages me to quote my previous rationale (since the article was yet improved I deleted a part of it). Well done. Essentiallly, it wins when compared to many other texts on the subject, encyclopedic ones included. References for any crucial statement. I think we could wish the article gets into a next encyclopedia contest --Beaumont (@) 18:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object - per technical issues: → Support.
  • There are a lot of redlinks. It is useless in FA level to introduce a link that does not exist. Remove redlinks or create a stub article for them.
  • Too many unrelated (blue) wikilinks cluttered in the article. Read again WP:CONTEXT. You don't need to link plain English words, such as (picked randomly) morale, dissident, nation, religion, media, etc. You don't have to link multiple times to the same page, such as social movement, People's Republic of Poland, etc. that only makes reader jump to the same page all over again. If you need to point so many times to the same article that contains more details, then consider to use Template:see also or other similar forms.
  • I'm a bit concern of using images in the article. Some of the images do not have any relation to the current section. For example, the 25th anniversary of Solidarnosc image and the US president Ronald Reagen visit to Pope. I know there is one sentence about Reagen's visit, but it is unecessary to be illustrated with one image. The article itself has already more than enough images. I'm baffled also with images of more recent politicians at the end of the article, that has small relationship with the subject of the article. It seems to me when I reached at the end that this article looks like an electorate campaign poster.

I only found those above items at the moment. Further comments will be given later. — Indon (reply) — 03:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the first two points. Red links are important to show what we are missing, although I will see if I can create few more stubs. As for blue links, they are important concepts and should be ilinked either on their first use (if general), or more often if they are relativly rare - although I will look through WP:CONTEXT and see what it suggest we can do differently. As for images, I think they are all relevant; feel free to remove any you think are not.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

As I think the red links in references and further reading should be checked for notability and unlinked if they don't meet the criteria. --Brand спойт 04:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As for technicalities, I'd suggest that plain English words could be disconnected (not too many instances; I'll try to do this immediately; double links too, if any). However, please note that Wikipedia is not meant for native English speakers only. Some more complicated expressions with a deeper meaning, as e.g. social movement should be kept! Links like this are desirable and make Wikipedia better than other encyclopedias. As for red links, I think we should keep the balance between a positive new article demand and, on the other hand, the red color in a FA text. I suggets that red links (13) can be revised, and we can stub a half of them. I can not see not notable ones. Maybe a few of them could be integrated in the Structure of historical Solidarity or something like this (not so sure), but this does not concern the present nomination anymore. --Beaumont (@) 08:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment. It's better to make a little stub (1-2 paragraphs) if editors think that a certain terms should be wikilinked but do not exist yet. As for not notable ones, please see the References section and you can see the "ocean of red links" there. Should all of the authors be wikilinked? And as for the blue wikilink, I agree for social movement link, but not to link it twice. Well, it might be not a good example. Take a look at the lead section, there are 2 (if I didn't mistakenly calculate it) links to People's of Republic of Poland. One is enough. — Indon (reply) — 09:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Good article on interesting and important topic. I think implementation of Brandmeister's and Indon's suggestions would make the article even better. Alex Bakharev 04:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-researched, readable article on an important subject. logologist|Talk 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - it's much better than during the last voting (yet probably worse than it could be during the next one... err... only joking) //Halibutt 09:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Further comments
  • A good encyclopaedic article should be accurate whenever it is read, either now or 20 years later. I found some terms point to an inexact time, which makes this article will be obsolete in the future. Avoid words, such as currently, the present, etc.
  • Section Solidarity underground (1982-88) is still listy. Unlike previous sections which give a nice flow of historical description, this section contains one or two-sentences paragraphs, that looks like bulleted historical timeline items.

I think these are all my last comments. I'll see responses from the editors before I change my vote. Overall, it's a good article, although at the end it's a bit detoured to the general current Poland's political situation. — Indon (reply) — 10:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I now addressed those two issues. The word present is left in acceptable context (as in history of Poland (1989-present).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would not agree to the History of Poland (1989-present), either. When is present? Today when we are writing it? Or tomorrow? Or 10 years later when we read that? — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the nature of Wikipedia makes it relativly safe to assume that present means 'up to any major event which happened few hours ago'. Polish historiography splits history of Poland into several chapters, with period after 1989 being the last one; once that changes we will likely see a new article on Wikipedia. There seem to be no rule against unsing present, and similar format is followed in many articles. History_of_Italy_as_a_Republic last section is entitled 'The "Second Republic" (1992-present)'. History_of_France last section is 'France in Modern Times II (1914-today)'; French Fifth Republic in the French history tempalte is entitled 'Fifth Republic (1958–present)'. Germany's latest history is found in History of Germany since 1945, Australia in History of Australia since 1945. Open-ended titles like this seem to be a rule in articles about events which are still ongoing - and history, certainly, has not ended yet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I concur. — Indon (reply) — 08:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm a little concerned with image clustering, It looks like you tried to fit in as many images as possible into the article. - Tutmosis 14:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support a wonderful article and atleast 2 images have been removed. Still, I wished to have received a reply from the nominator for my concern. - Tutmosis 20:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought that I addressed this issue in a reply to another reviewer, and we also discussed this on article's talk page.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, my fault. I'm sorry for my comment. Nothing personal. :) - Tutmosis 03:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks much better than the last time. Maybe some formal issues listed above should be applied but generally it is OK. - Darwinek 21:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are many redlinks in the article. Is it that difficult to put a one-liner substub or a redirect of a sort for each redlink in the main body of the article? Also is it really needed to have red wikilinks for each author of a referenced material? Some authors are quite possibly not notable. Alex Bakharev 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think we all have concerns about the redlinks in the article. I have made similar comments above. — Indon (reply) — 08:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The problems are still here: short passages, piles of ill-digested (and unnecessary) images, red links for non-notable authors (have no idea why Piotrus thinks every author he cites is notable), WP:CONTEXT... Seriously, we need to set a limit on the number of nominations of the same article within one month, especially as concerns about partisan voting on Piotr's articles have not been addressed as yet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe the technical concerns expressed above have been addressed. In particular,

1. no more redlinks
2. plain English words delinked, no more double links
3. two images have been deleted (actually, I do agree that all of them were relevant; but to respond to a few independent and coherent remarks, and to reach a consensus, I've tried to select the images that would cause the less quality loss. It turns out that my choice coincides with that of Indon.) --Beaumont (@) 12:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All issues addressed now. --Lysy^talk 20:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article looks complete and ready. There are many citations that do need some technical clean up on. Mkdw^talk 06:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations have been greatly improved. Mkdw^talk 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. All concerns have been addressed. This one is ready to go. I congratulate Piotrus for not getting discouraged after the first failed FA nomination and instead working to turn this into a truly outstanding article. Balcer 00:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Indeed, all issues addressed, very nice. A grand piece of work from Logologist correcting, and from Piotrus well... he knows why. --Ouro 07:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose:
  • Images: Image:Lech Walesa Solidarity Time.jpg → no rationale. Image:Solidarnosc.png → no rationale, no source. Image:WieczorWroclawia20marca1981.jpg → it is not a free image. Just because I scanned/photographed an album cover I cannot claim copyright in it. Image:Jaruzelski przemowienie.jpg → not a photo. Image:Dewiza-SW.jpg → not a free image. Permission is needed from Solidarity and not some website. Image:High noon 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg → no rationale. Image:Okragly Stol 1989.jpg → no source, how do you know it was a Polish photographer? Image:Lechwalesa.jpg → no copyright tag. Image:Tadeusz Mazowiecki1.jpg → no rationale. Most of the other images are climed under disputed {{Polishpd}} (nevermind legal arguments, how do you know if it was a Polish photographer and it was published without a (c) sign? How do you know (c) was not in the image caption?)
    • Image:Lech Walesa Solidarity Time.jpg → hasd rationale. Image:Solidarnosc.png → added source, rationale. Image:WieczorWroclawia20marca1981.jpg → it is not an album cover, it is scan on newspaper, and a special issue at that (modified by signatures and such). I would leave it to the copyright experts to determine if it's free or not. Image:Jaruzelski przemowienie.jpg → it can be a photo of the screen. Do you have proof otherwise? Image:Dewiza-SW.jpg → uploader claims he has permission to release the picture under no copyright - take it up with him, I tend to assume good faith (especially when we are talking about a logo of an illegal underground organisation which would like for it's logo to be spread as widely as possible and thus likely release it into PD if they cared about such issues at all). Image:High noon 4 6 89-Tomasz Sarnecki.jpg → NowCommons with uploader claiming the author gave permission for PD. Image:Okragly Stol 1989.jpg → source added, author found ([6] - Polish) and the photos were not marked with his copyright until 1990s. [:Image:Lechwalesa.jpg]] → has a copyright tag, but I'd agree it's unlikely the correct one. I am sure there are better (freeer) images of Wałesa out there, feel free to remove it (it's not vital) and/or replace it. Image:Tadeusz Mazowiecki1.jpg → added rationale. Uff, that was a lot of copyright paranoia to address. PolishPD arguments are OT here, bottom line is that I assume good faith and dislike copyright paranoia.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some examples of "heroic" writing:
    • Solidarity's survival meant a break in the hard-line stance of the communist Polish United Workers' Party (PZPR), and was an unprecedented event not only for the People's Republic of Poland ... but for the whole of the Eastern bloc. → survival? unprecedented?
    • Solidarity's influence led to the Revolutions of 1989 ... and to the spread of anti-communist ideas and movements throughout the countries of the Eastern Bloc... → the only cause was Solidarity?
    • he was a bellwether of change, and became an important symbol—and supporter—of changes to come
    • ...characterized by long queues and empty shelves.
    • ...Wałęsa scored a public-relations victory.
    • ...the talks would radically alter the shape of the Polish government and society.
    • Its activists were dogged by the Security Service (SB), but managed to strike back
    • By December 28, 1981, strikes had ceased, and Solidarity appeared crippled. → crippled?
      • Heroic style - the aricle passed academic peer review, I believe the above phrases are acceptable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Writing: Way too many one-two-three line pragraphs (especially at the end). Very choppy style, sometimes hard to follow what's happening because sentences are packed with facts, dates, names. For example, "In September 1990, Wałęsa declared that Gazeta Wyborcza had no right to use the Solidarity logo." - how is this relevant, notable, important?
    • The article has been copyedited, and editors commenting on the need to improve style had agreed it's sufficient. By all means, feel free to further work on it if you feel it's not up to your stadnards.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • References: Most of the controversial facts are from an article written by a Marxist writer... Also, can you put all the cite templates in one line and not make every parameter start on a new line?
    • The aricle passed academic peer review, I believe the above references are acceptable. 'Most controversial facts' is POV. While I am not fan of marxism, being a historian with a marxist views does not make one unreliable - marxism (or socialism), are not automatically disqualifying like let's say stalinism, nazism or extreme nationalism. Colin Barker was an academic, sociologist and historian, working at a Western university for 35 years - I believe his publications are quite reliable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. While being a marxist is not a sin, especially in the academic community, it should be stressed that, actually, Renata's argument supports NPOV nature of the article and encourages the promotion. If the most controversial facts in the article on an anti-communist movement are supported by a marxist, it certainly implies that it is not written in favor of the movement. On the other hand, I believe that we do not depreciate it either (no one was concerned about it). --Beaumont (@) 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
  • General: most attention is devoted to 1 year period - 1980-81. While strikes are fun, I don't think Solidarity is remembered because of them....Renata 15:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's your POV. That section takes 16 out of 60kb, so I'd dispute that 'most attention' is devoted to it. The strikes of 80-81 were crucial, as mentioned in various refs, and again, the article passed academic peer review, and the reviewer had no problems with devoting ~20% of space to that period.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am disturbed by Piotr's insertion of his comments between Renata's arguments, so that it's difficult to distinguish who speaks what. As a result, much of Renata's argument is lost to new readers of this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Julo 18:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Much work and improvement has occurred. I now support. Rlevse 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons stated at previous nomination as the problems raised there were not addressed, and per Renata's reasons (except for the copyright ones. We have enough wannabe copyright experts and I do not want to join their chorus which I find quite annoying). The article still looks like an eulogy and, most importantly, a POV fork of the entire History of Poland for the period of early-70s to end-80s. Take for instance the Popieluszko incident: his photo and two paragraphs around it seem like belong to the History of Poland general article rather than an article about one of Polish trade unions. There is nothing Solidarity specific in Popieluszko's murder, in the outcry it caused. There is nothing Solidarity specific in authors' lengthy paragraph about Gorby reforms and their effect. And the article is full of such examples. Solidarity specific stuff belongs to the Solidarity article which is in a pity shape. Polish general history stuff belongs to the History of Poland article or one of its subarticles. I see no rationale in the article in its current form and I think having lots of inline refs and grammar cleaned up is no substitute for the encyclopedicity and NPOV. --Irpen 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Because of the reasons you raised in the previous nomination I asked for the academic external peer review. The academic in question did not share your comments (and I particulary asked him to consider the points you raised than). Popiełuszko is relevant to the article, as explained, he was considered one of the 'Solidarity's priests'; his masses were were people voiced support for the organizations; his death made him a matryr of the organization. Gorby's reforms significantly undermined Polish governement and were an important factor in forcing it to negotiate with the opposition. Your claims about this article being a POV fork are unsupported by anybody - which of course does not make them invalid, but majority of the reviewrs, but I really think you should reconsider your POV here.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider that the alleged "eulogy" of an anti-communist movement that eventually led to the fall of the Party (and the socialist system in Poland) is supported by 22 references to a Marxist-Socialist). To some extent this is a nice illustration of WP:NPOV policy (Writing for the "enemy"). As for me, not a surprise that the peer review supports the text. Actually, I do not know of reliable sources that would question what is written in the article. --Beaumont (@) 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NeXT

I've been working on this one for a few months. Here's a link to the peer review. This article has been classed as a "Good article". Includes 25 footnotes, reliable sources. Has also been copy-edited. If there are any problems that prevent you from supporting this article, please do post a comment and I'll try to fix it. Thanks! — Wackymacs 14:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article seems complete by probably needs a copyedit by a fresh eye. For example in "Software" the word 'also' is used quite alot. Also, the article seems to have too many 2/3 sentence paragraphs which could easily be combined. - Tutmosis 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Also I forgot to mention, sometimes the article assumes the reader has background knowledge of the topic. Example would be, in "Early history" the article assumes the reader has knowledge of who Steve Jobs is and his background with Apple. - Tutmosis 15:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I have fixed the things you mentioned, but it still needs a fresh copy-edit, which I cannot do, but I'm sure someone else can. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Support All my issues brought up here and on nominator's talk page were dealt with. I think the article now meets the criteria. - Tutmosis 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. It really needs a good copyediting and prose check, as the middle in particular reads like a list, which doesn't work well. I also suggest using a non-depreciated public domain tag. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Can you explain further what exactly reads like a list? I went through it and didn't notice anything in particular. Also, what do you mean by "non-depreciated public domain tag". Thanks. — Wackymacs 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Essentially, the whole middle section, when I left the comment, read more like a bunch of bullet points rather than an article. "In 1987, this happened." New para: "In 1989, this happened." The prose still needs help, but it's better already. As for the public domain tag, see, for instance, Image:Premier serveur Web.jpeg, which says on the tag "Note: This tag is obsolete! Don't use this generic template - please use instead..." with a list of better tags. The rest of the images look okay, with the exception of Image:NeXTSTEP_desktop.jpg, which I'm somewhat tentative regarding the fair use rationale (you never discuss the appearance of the desktop, which makes me question the fair use need for a picture of it). I could be wrong on the latter, and I'll retract that if someone corrects me. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Prose has been improved. Public domain tag on the image has been changed. Fair use rationale added to the NeXTSTEP screenshot. - NeXTSTEP is mentioned in the article several times, technically it does not have a "Desktop" like other OSes (such as Mac OS X or Windows), it's just that whoever uploaded the image named it wrong. — Wackymacs 21:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll retract my oppose. Looks better, I still think it could use another good one-over, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further changes have been made in relation to the prose and quality of writing.. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose Weak Support: Per Badlydrawnjeff, but not as strong to say that it is a full oppose. Needs in general to be longer. Leave a message on my talk page when you've fixed this and I'll gladly make the weak oppose a Support. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 18:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Badlydrawnjeff has withdrawn his oppose, the things he mentioned have been fixed. Length isn't currently an issue - what more do you think the article should say? I need some more specifics from you to be able to increase the article's length. — Wackymacs 17:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Article slightly expanded. — Wackymacs 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what is wrong with this article. To be vague, I just don't like it. Not in an opinionate POV way, but the prose didn't really stick to me as compelling. Hope this is good enough. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 23:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Uh that doesn't really help me... Any specifics that strike you as needing a change? "I just don't like it" isn't really to do with the FA criteria... Thanks for the Support vote. — Wackymacs 11:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I like the length (it wasn't too short or too long), good reference section, good images--Weatherman1126 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Well written article that holds a user's interest. Plus, the topic has a pretty broad audience. Tomhormby 05:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I added a lot of background information to the article. Especially on the feature creep. Tomhormby 03:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support I read this article a little while back and it's fantastic. Good work! - Mike | Talk 05:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Please ensure that you comply with WP:FN. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article already complies with that. Please clarify, give examples. — Wackymacs 16:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Citation goes straight after the punctuation without any spaces in between. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Fixed. — Wackymacs 20:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • By me. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• It's pretty well referenced until the last two sections, which contain a total of six unreferenced paragraphs. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Firefly (TV series)

This article has had a peer review awhile back where we actively solicited feedback at WP:WAF and elsewhere for comments, etc. Since then we've worked on the suggestions and feel we're ready to see if it is ready to be FA. --plange 04:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Support - The only thing holding me back is that the DVD loo is still in the infobox.. I could not support unless it was the title screen, sorry. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Is there a guideline or policy, or MoS thing on this? Or WikiProject TV style guide that states this? I confess I'm not aware of one (I don't edit popular culture stuff outside of Firefly), so if you could point me in the right direction I'd be extremely grateful. Thanks! --plange 16:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Precedant among articles and also fair use concerns.. msot people wont recongize that as the "signiture" of the show. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've changed it for you. --plange 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Concerns addressed and so i've changed to support :-) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - This article could use some copy editing. There is a terribly long sentence in the "Geneis" section that is clunky and confusing (first sentence), and the first sentence in the 2nd paragraph could better be put into the first paragraph. There are also some lapses of style, such as this in the "Set design" section: They wanted to not only make it feel like they were really in a ship, but it also allowed the actors to stay in the moment and interact, without having to stop after each shot and reset up for the next shot.

I can't really make any more style comments, because I became so engrossed in the article I began reading it solely for pleasure...surely the mark of a very good article :) Jeffpw 13:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comments (and am glad you're enjoying it!). I've reworked the sections you talked about, in fact I completely rearranged things in set design even further than you suggested. Let me know if that addresses your concerns. I will do another copyedit too. Thanks! --plange 16:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support -The Set design section reads a lot better now. I really enjoyed this article. I have never heard of this show (it never came to Europe, apparently), but it not only explained it quite comprehensively, it made me want to buy it on DVD. Good interlinking, too. There were a few terms I didn't understand, but the links were there to explain. One little quibble: this sentence might still be made clearer: The general idea of the show came about when Whedon had finished reading The Killer Angels, a book about the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War. He was struck with wanting to portray people who had fought on the losing side of a war and their experience as pioneers and immigrants on the fringe of civilization. As I interpret it, you're saying Whedon equates the Confederate soldiers with "pioneers and immigrants on the fringe of civilization". If that's what he said/meant, ok. I just never thought of them like that. Jeffpw 16:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Shiny! It's hard when you know something so well whether or not it was covered well for someone completely unfamiliar with it. On the last, yep, I better work on that more, because what he meant was the Confederates after the war. They lost and many headed west and lived on the fringe of civilization in the Old West. It did have some showings in Europe, but I don't know how universal it was (see List_of_Firefly_episodes#International). --plange 17:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That sentence looks great now! Absolutely unambiguous. By the way, I checked and Firefly did not show in the Netherlands :-(. Thank God for multi-region DVD players. Jeffpw 18:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment — Overall a very nice article. There were a few nit-picking issues that caught my eye: Support
  • pioneer/frontier, Firefly/Serenity, and/or -- please re-write so there is no slash. It looks unpolished.
  • "Another influence was a book he had read shortly after The Killer Angels"--Ambiguous sentence. Did he read another book shortly after reading The Killer Angels? If so what was it?
  • "both strength and motion and the word "firefly" had both" -- duplicate use of the word "both", and it needs a comma after "motion".
  • Is the word "docu" a typo? Or is that correct in the quotation? I'm assuming means "documentary". Maybe it should be written "docu[mentary]"?
  • "The Ballad of Serenity", -- trailing comma usually is inside the double-quotes.
  • "...soul of the ship: According to creator..." -- lower-case 'according' since it's a colon rather than a period.
  • "(training?)" is a terse speculation inserted in the midst of a sentence and needs to be written more clearly.
  • "...inability to gel..." --I believe this use of "gel" is slang.

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the feedback! --plange 07:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I would also like to see Tony's points addressed below, although "fully copy-edited throughout" seems a little extreme. Most of the article seems to be in a pretty good condition. — RJH (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, yep, I gave it several more run-throughs myself (the difference can be see here [7] and Tony emailed my some names of other copy-editors. I also bartered an exchange with User:Paxomen for the Buffy article, so that should be happening soon... --plange 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Excellent article. The Filmaker 03:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object unless fully copy-edited throughout. The lead is not promising:
  • "It presents an atypical science fiction narrative in that its naturalistic future setting is modeled after traditional Western movie motifs." "in that" is a bit awkward. Why not: "Its naturalistic future setting, modeled after traditional Western movie motifs, presents an atypical science fiction narrative." In any case, I'm unsure that a setting logically presents a narrative. A narrative is written in a setting, that happens to be suitable for that narrative.
  • "wound up on Serenity" is a little informal here. "for various reasons" adds nothing, and should be removed or those reasons specified.
  • "To add a twist, it is a future where the only two surviving superpowers are the United States and China (which formed the Alliance), so it is rife with cultural fusion." Why is this a twist? It's evolving already. Why, logically, does the existence of two superpowers result in "cultural fusion"?
  • "More people with greater technology". "Greater" is vague. More advanced? More of it?

And casting our eyes down further at random:

• • "The fact that it was also something insignificant that had a powerful name added to its allure." that ... that. And try to avoid "the fact that ...".
  • "greatly interested in"—unidiomatic. Perhaps "much interested".
  • Some of the paragraphs (e.g., last two under "Genesis") could be merged/rationalised. Tony 04:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the above points (I hope) and did some more copyediting, but will tackle again tomorrow. Can you recommend a good copyeditor for sci-fi genre articles? --plange 07:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I've emailed Plange. Tony 13:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I gave it several more run-throughs myself (the difference can be see here [8] and contacted some names of other copy-editors yoy gave me. I also bartered an exchange with User:Paxomen for the Buffy article, so that should be happening soon... --plange 18:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, great work. Appears to meet all FA criteria. -- Visviva 06:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Can't seem to find many faults, a very good read. (And the show is excellent too :) Abel29a 19:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Object. All my concerns have now been addressed. While this article is solid overall, and the sections describing the production history of the show are quite thorough, I am suprised at the number of unequivocal support votes here, as the article has quite a few problems and several troublesome unsourced statements:
  • The themes section adds very little to the article, as it picks out three isolated comments that fail to elaborate on the wider themes of the show contrary to the section title.
  • The Episode and boradcast history section states that "Fans, self-named Browncoats, attributed the low ratings in part to actions of the FOX Network — most notably the fact that FOX had aired the episodes out of chronological order, making the plot much more difficult to follow." I myself concur with this, as Fox really did appear to do everything it could to kill the show, but fan opinion is not sourced opinion.
  • The Critical Review section is in no way a comprehensive look at the critical reception of the show, as very few important tv critics are included in the sources. Furthermore, the section merely gives a few specifics without giving a broader overview of the critical reception.
  • The fandom section is a real mess, with the statements "support for the show led to a release of the series on DVD in December of 2004" and "the strong sales of the DVDs have been largely attributed to word of mouth by Browncoats." completely unsourced and therefore quite dubious without more proof. Furthermore, while the statements "Ultimately enough interest was shown to convince Universal Studios to take on the production of the feature film, Serenity." and "Numerous early screenings were held for existing fans in an attempt to create a buzz and increase ticket sales when it was released widely." are both probably true, they are also unsourced.
  • The Popular reception and cult status section is misnamed, as it primarily refers to the latter rather than the former, as the section is all about how awesome people think the show was, which was certainly not the popular reception since it was a ratings bomb.
  • The header for the article contains the statement that Firefly had "unprecedented fan support campaigns" after its cancellation. This statement is unsourced and suspect. It would probably be better to refer to a "strong" campaign rather than an "unprecedented" one. Indrian 07:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll address these below:

• • The themes section adds very little to the article, as it picks out three isolated comments that fail to elaborate on the wider themes of the show contrary to the section title.
    • I'll try to work on this, but it's hard without going into WP:OR territory.
      • I understand the difficulty here. If everything else gets cleared up besides this, I will grudgingly drop the point, but if it is impossible to create a good themes section without OR, then my preference would be that what little material is in here is integrated in another way and the themes section is dropped.
        • I dropped that section and integrated the pieces into areas where it made sense elsewhere. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Critical Review section is in no way a comprehensive look at the critical reception of the show, as very few important tv critics are included in the sources. Furthermore, the section merely gives a few specifics without giving a broader overview of the critical reception.
    • Since I'm not normally an editor of pop culture stuff, I confess I'm ignorant on who should be included. Can you tell me who the important tv critics are? I'll then see if they covered it. I tried to find what I could, but relatively little reviews seemed to exist while the show was on the air -- I found the NYT one, and the others listed there, but I think that was it
      • I do not know who the big tv critics are either, but a comprehensive section should probably at least include references (don't need quotes) to the critics of the major papers such as the Washington Post, Boston Globe, LA Times, and Chicago Tribune. If anyone else can provide more enlightenment on this, that would be appreciated.
        • I found one for the Boston Globe and included it, the Washington Post, LA Times and Chicago Tribune I can't read as they require payment... --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Actually, I think the article you hyperlinked below will be fine. It states the show received generally positive reviews, which is all I am really looking for. Put in a new opening sentence talking about how the show got good reviews in general with a cite to that article, and along with the specific quotes you have, this will satisfy this objection.
            • Oops, before I saw this, I found another from the San Francisco Chron that panned it, and so I added that too. It tied in nicely as a counter-balance to the Globe as they both were on the same day, and then leads into the next negative-but-give-it-a-chance one from Salon, etc. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The fandom section is a real mess, with the statements "support for the show led to a release of the series on DVD in December of 2004" and "the strong sales of the DVDs have been largely attributed to word of mouth by Browncoats." completely unsourced and therefore quite dubious without more proof. Furthermore, while the statements "Ultimately enough interest was shown to convince Universal Studios to take on the production of the feature film, Serenity." and "Numerous early screenings were held for existing fans in an attempt to create a buzz and increase ticket sales when it was released widely." are both probably true, they are also unsourced.
    • I sourced the last 2 and am sure I can source the first part, but it's at home, so will have to wait until tonight
      • Okay, sourced the first one, and wondering if you think that this article's statements can be a source for the second http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/DDGQJD4D2O1.DTL&hw=firefly&sn=001&sc=1000 --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This certainly takes care of the first one no problem. As for the second one, I do not think it quite works. The sentence specifically says that strong sales have largely been attributed to word of mouth, but you have still not provided a source that attributes strong sales to word of mouth. Nothing wrong with leaving in the statement that fans helped sales by getting the word out. I am still not comfortable, however, with the proposition that this was the primary reason for the success unless it is conclusively stated somewhere.
          • I went ahead and took this out until I can find a source... --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The Popular reception and cult status section is misnamed, as it primarily refers to the latter rather than the former, as the section is all about how awesome people think the show was, which was certainly not the popular reception since it was a ratings bomb.
    • I changed the section header.
  • The header for the article contains the statement that Firefly had "unprecedented fan support campaigns" after its cancellation. This statement is unsourced and suspect. It would probably be better to refer to a "strong" campaign rather than an "unprecedented" one.
    • I sourced it, let me know if you don't think that it was a valid statement to make. I included the quote in the footnote from the article.

The other parts I will address tonight (am at work right now)

• • • • I looked at your source and do not believe it is good enough. Wheedon was praising the fans for their spirited campaign and called Serenity the fans' movie in an unprecedented sense. First of all, this does not speak to the scope of the campaign itself, and second of all, I do not think Wheedon qualifies as an expert on fan campaigns in general. I still strongly believe this should be changed unless you find more sources.
        • Does this article help establish it? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/06/08/DDGQJD4D2O1.DTL&hw=firefly&sn=001&sc=1000 --plange 05:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I have no doubt this fan campaign was something special, I am just cautious about absolute terms. Call it strong, call it impressive, call it phenomenal, or any other adjective that implies something well above the norm and I think this article is more than enough to support the statement. It may even be unprecedented, but that word just worries me unless I see an article or two that uses that exact word. I hope you understand that this is not a dig at what I think is an amazing fan community.
            • Not taken that way at all :-) I really appreciate your feedback! I've changed it to impressive. --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --plange 17:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Your welcome! The article really is good overall and I am confident that my objections can be addressed. Indrian 19:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry for the delay - I will work on this, I promise! I was heavily involved in the U.S. elections so was pretty busy this week and now, needless to say, am pretty wiped out :-) --plange 05:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly no need to apologize; we all have real lives. After this last round of exchanges I believe we are very close here. I look forward to your response. Indrian 05:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Looks like I forgot to address the second one about fan's opinion about why it didn't succeed. I'll look for another source that says it didn't succeed... --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • I made a small change that I think is in line with the source provided and gets rid of the bit about the fan opinion which I believe fixes my problem while leaving the message intact. As far as I can tell, all my objections have now been met and I can support. I appreciate all your hard work. Indrian 06:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The music section needs to be expanded beyond a few sentences. Other than that, the article looks great! The Wookieepedian 13:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Hi Wookie, since you're one of our editors, can you be a buddy and help us out with that? Do you have Finding Serenity? There's an article in there that speaks more about the Music. I'm about to take a wikibreak for 4 days, so can't get to it just yet, thanks! --plange 06:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. Whilst the comments made about the article are valid, I do believe that it meets the FA criteria. Barnas 17:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well-written, excellent article. - Mailer Diablo 19:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom. Qjuad 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice job! Meets all the criteria. No concerns over the music section. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Meets FA criteria. Well done --Aude (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pornography in the United States

Self-nom. After the old test nomination I've fixed several proposals and checked out the article's perspectives. Several applicable suggetsions have been fixed after an automated peer review. I've made a further expanding and severe editing trying to give a detailed and in-depth (as far as it possible) coverage. Recent copyedit was done by Eastlaw. Thanks, --Brand спойт 12:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly, needs a copyedit; eg in line 3 "The case, despite of demonstrating that" and "The upcoming censorship of pornographic materials in the United States, among the First and partially Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to Constitution, became based on the so-called harm principle, as well as in Canada and the United Kingdom." Secondly, the article seems very law-based; obviously, what SCOTUS and the other courts have said is important, but is it more than half of the total article? Also, the lead is inadequate; it only summarises the legal side of the article. Batmanand | Talk 14:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've splitted both sentences. --Brand спойт 12:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support. Well written article and anything about pornography is inherently good as far as I'm concerned. I love itPolicratus 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Troll. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose. per batmanand and the referenceing is inconsistent, full of external jumps. Sumoeagle179 23:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decreased the jumps number. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Why the hell does the article have the Supreme Court infobox? This article certainly has a lot of content related to the Supreme Court, but not so much as to need the infobox. -- Kicking222 03:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Already removed. --Brand спойт 12:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Pictures of any publications or something? Doesn't have to be something explicit and hardcore, but a frontpage shot of Playboy wouldn't hurt.UberCryxic 22:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

There were some pics, but Patstuart removed all, that according to him failed the copyright criteria for covers. --Brand спойт 04:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Still. Completely. The prose ain't near close. Very obvious problems with the first sentence haven't been corrected since the first FAC. Don't go looking for pics Brand--find someone to edit this, and have some patience doing so. Contact me on talk and I'll try to go over it. Give Tony (who gets a lot of requests) a month or so, without pestering him. It can be improved, but as it stands this article is not near FA quality and should be delisted. Marskell 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. No matter how good this article is, I don't think its content is suitable for the homepage of Wikipedia which is viewed by so many people of different ages, societies, etc. Flymeoutofhere 13:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any rule that states that an FA MUST eventually appear on the Main Page? I don't think this is the case, but of course, I'm not sure that it's not the case (though I'm far more likely to believe the former than the latter). -- Kicking222 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, there's definitely no such rule. As it says at the top of the Today's featured article page, the featured article director even maintains an unofficial list of articles unsuitable for front page placement. I don't see why an article that simply discusses porn in a nonexplicit way would be on that list, but in any case it's irrelevant to whether the article deserves FA. —Celithemis 03:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I know that, Flymeoutofhere, but have a look at WP:PORN, Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. In my opinion if such kind of article is a NPOV, reliable and doesn't contain any hardcore, it may be featured some day, like Prostitution in China. A free knowledge is the essence. --Brand спойт 18:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The non-idiomatic English alone is enough to keep this from FA, but I won't belabor that point since it's already been mentioned. It's only part of the reason for my opposition, though. Disorganized paragraphs and sections are also a problem throughout, and would make the article difficult to read even if the sentences were polished up. For example, the two paragraphs under the Internet section header are a jumble of information; the raw ingredients for a discussion of Internet porn may be there, but they haven't been put together into a coherent whole yet.

Inadequately explained points: in what way does the CAN-SPAM Act address internet porn? And what does it mean exactly that "Lesbian sites are considered not to fit securely into anti-pornography or 'pro-sex' feminist ideas"?

The section on the anti-porn movement has major NPOV and sourcing problems. First it quotes an argument against anti-porn feminists' views at length before actually explaining what those views are, which slights their side of the debate, and is also confusing. Later it briefly mentions that anti-porn activists claim a connection between pornography and rape, then, without discussing their arguments, goes straight into a refutation based entirely on one recent paper -- which appears at first to be a book, since the title is italicized in the text; it should be in quotation marks. The paper doesn't appear to have been accepted by a peer-reviewed publication yet -- it's part of a working paper series -- and the article doesn't even cite the paper itself, just a web columnist's opinion piece based on the paper. That's the *only* source cited on the subject. Earlier on, the source for anti-censorship feminists' views is an introductory textbook on popular film. This research is far too sketchy, especially for such a contentious issue.

The section also does not give a coherent explanation of how the Minneapolis and Indianapolis ordinances differed from previous anti-pornography legislation. The fact that they created civil causes of action, rather than criminal penalties, is not even mentioned.

The history of pornography in the U.S. before 1950 is barely touched. Even though there is a link to the "history of erotic depictions" article, some discussion of dirty postcards, mutoscope reels, and so on seems in order. Also, what about the Comstock Laws?

Limited perspective: the "HIV encounter" section indicates that the U.S. porn industry does not use condoms, but I believe that the gay male porn industry does.

"The market is very diverse and range from the mainstream heterosexual content to the rarefied S/M, BDSM, interracial sex, ethnic, etc. through enduringly popular gay porn." Setting aside the problems with this sentence that even a superficial copyedit by a native speaker will catch, S/M is a subcategory of BDSM, and the "range" presented -- with "ethnic" porn somehow in between gay and straight -- makes no sense.

The sentence about New York v. Ferber says laws against child pornography were "successfully challenged" when it apparently means they were successfully defended. The section on the Anti-Pornography Movement says "subversive" when it means "submissive."

It's obvious that a lot of work has gone into this, but it's simply not anywhere near FA quality. I have to agree with those who said last time that it should not be GA either. —Celithemis 04:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Robert Baker

This is a self-nomination. It currently has "Good Article" status, has been peer reviewed by the WikiBiography Project, and all suggestions have been implemented. It is thoroughly referenced, and (I believe) it complies fully with Wiki style. Thank you for your considerationJeffpw 10:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• I do like it, but I'm withholding support for one quick moment because I'm not sure that the book covers are appropriate given WP's rules on fair use. A quick look hasn't uncovered anything, and I'm not sure if someone has already taken a look at them and said "Yeah, they're fine." Once that's resolved one way or another, you'll have my support. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, BDJ. No, nobody has said anything except that I should add book covers and find a fair use rationale. I thought since there is a book cover option in Fair Use Rationale to tick, that it was automatically Fair use. If you click on the pics, it shows the licensing with Wiki's Fair Use rationale. Please let me know if you find anything that says otherwise. . While I think they add nice visuals, and the titles are discussed in the article, I am not opposed to deleting them if they do not comply with Fair Use. Jeffpw 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Forgot to add: Thank you for your support:)Jeffpw 14:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • My understanding of Wikipedia fair use is that if the image is not being used to describe something in the article (and the article only somewhat discusses the books), it's not a good rationale. I'm confident that someone with a better knowledge will come along and correct me if I'm wrong, but I know that I had an issue with an article because of placement of FU images, and a quick shift to where they were relevant to the text fixed the issue. With band articles, I know photos of album covers to go along with the discography is a no-no, but this is more than that, but less of a discussion. So I'm a little confused, but you certainly have my eventual support on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • You are correct. The use of book covers requires discussion of the book, not the mere mention. The book cover seem to violate FUC#8 in this instance by only contributing to the appearance of the page, rather than contributing to the understanding of the content. I'll see if I can get some one else to take a look though. Jay32183 21:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I concur. With a discussion of the book, it may be appropriate to include the book cover attached to that specific paragraph. Note that it may be difficult to find a replacement image to depict the person as, I understand, the person is dead. This means that WP:FUC is relaxed a bit, but we still may not use a book cover except to illustrate the book. Overall, though, this is reason to remove the image (or move it, at least), not necessarily to fail it for featured-article candidate, at least as far as I understand. --Yamla 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
          • As I see it (and please correct me if I am wrong), the only book cover image that might need deleting is the one for "Adrenaline". The image for "Tim And Pete" is in the "controversy" section, which is 4 paragraphs, all of which are about that book. So it seems logical to show an image of it. The image of "Boy Wonder" is in the legacy section, and there is a paragraph solely about that book, listing it as his most popular and his Magnum opus. That to me seems like enough of discussion to keep the image. If necessary, I can add to that paragraph, and also add analysis of the book "Adrenaline". The image of Baker himself I can actually get permission for, from his estate, if it comes to that. I should mention I only put the images in because more than one person assessing the article said it needed visual content. So as far as I'm concerned, if the consensus is to delete them all, I am OK with itJeffpw 21:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is now a long, sourced paragraph about Adrenaline and its themes, showing how Baker built on what he began with this book in all his subsequent novels. I now think that every image qualifies under Wiki Fair use, though I am the first to say I am not objective. Jeffpw 10:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First image still does not qualify as it is part of the infobox and so is being used solely to depict the person. It may be free use if it truly is the front cover of the book and if the image is moved down to the section that talks about that book. The rest of them look good to me. --Yamla 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• No, Yamla, that is the back cover of the book, not the front. It has been published in newspapers, though. Does that make it Fair Use? I honestly didn't think that photo would be a problem. FWIW, the literary executor of Baker has seen this page, and didn't have an objection to that photo being used. Can I simply ask him for permission? Really, where am I going to get a picture of a dead person, otherwise? And thanks for checking and endorsing the other book cover images Jeffpw 16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it cannot be used under the book license. Ideally, if you could get permission under a free license, that would be perfect. But if that does not work and given that it is not really reasonable to find a free image, I think it would be reasonable to use this under the promotional license if the literary executor has no problem. --Yamla 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The back cover should be usable under {{promophoto}}, no? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I will email the literary executor. If this particular photo cannot be used (I don't know if he took the pic or not) I am almost certain he will grant permission to use a personal photo that is on his own official website. I probably should have done that in the first place, but had no idea using pics was so complicated. Sorry for the inconvenience. Jeffpw 16:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a pain in the behind. But using a freely licensed image on that page would be a very good thing. Thanks for working so hard to understand the requirements here. --Yamla 17:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ron Robertson has given me permission to use that image, so I am changing the licensing to add "Used with permission" and his (redacted) email. Now it seems all the image issues are sorted out. Jeffpw 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The article seems comprehensive.--Yannismarou 10:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support to make things clear. The photo thing is cleared up, and the article is well-written and comprehensive, and a proper size. Thumbs up! --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written, well-sourced, and very interesting. I'm no image expert, but I think objections to the book covers are going too far. He was a novelist and these are covers of his novels, which are discussed in the article directly adjacent to where the covers are shown, and they were a major part of his life. It would be good to get a free-license image of the person, if possible, especially given the literary executor seems to like the article, which suggests he'd make one available. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article has improved in leaps and bounds recently. It is well-written and comprehensive, with a particularly impressive treatment of the literary criticism and legacy of Baker's works. MLilburne 11:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Good work Jeff. I have placed a fact request beside could be considered "transgressional fiction", as it is the sort of claim that requires a source. A small thing: when inserting words that you feel have been elided in quotes, do it [like this] and not (like this). Marskell 13:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference at the end of the paragraph covers all statements in the paragraph after reference [5]. For the sake of clarity, I added that reference after "transgressional fiction", as well. Also, thanks for the change in the brackets. Is that just Wiki style? I ask because I just cut and pasted the quotes.Jeffpw 16:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Hm, well it's prose style in general. If it's bracketed (like so) the words should actually have been spoken/written. Where the words were not actually spoken/written, but have been added to make the sentence grammatical, do it [like so]. Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seemed to be the latter case in the instances I changed; if the context of the sources suggest otherwise, you can change it back.
    • Anyhow, support. An interesting read, well-paced and balanced, covers its topic. Marskell 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Three examples:
    • "was just a sweet old woman putting up with a lot of (stuff) that I couldn't even imagine." Why is stuff in brackets here? Did he perhaps say "a lot of shit" and the word was altered at publication? It should probably be [stuff].
    • "...is there a point at which such invective (and such suggestions) become simply counterproductive?" This is a quote from a critic and we can assume he is deliberately using a paranthesis, so (leave as is).
    • "I felt like a door-to-door salesman going to all these [story] pitch meetings." This I changed, because I can only imagine [story] was added after the fact to unpack pitch.
    • So there's some (picky) examples for you ;). Marskell 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      •  :-) Thank you for the picky [helpful] suggestions. In that first example, I thought as well that the LA Times had substituted a word. With example 3, too, I thought the writer had added "story" for clarity. As I said, the () were from the Times, not me; but your suggestion was helpful, since I wasn't aware of that rule. And thanks for the support on the article. Baker is a very underappreciated writer who deserves a wider audience. Jeffpw 19:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good work and well referenced. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

Self-Nomination I've spent the better part of last week creating this entirely from scratch. Conveying the quirks of the game (like the Japanese humor) was a bit difficult, but I hope to have pulled it off by using a bevy of sources. The CVG magazine project came in help here. In line with CVG featured articles, I've kept the plot summary comprehensive. The prose roughly should come in around 30k. Objections will be corrected swiftly and zealously. Thanks for reviewing. --Zeality 04:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks good, but what's with all the inline citations? For example "Concerning graphics, reviewers noted graphical consistency and rich detail in reproducing the Japanese countryside in three dimensions.[1][29][32][5][3][30][15][33]" This is a no-no for a FA. No more than two per sentence is generally acceptable. Nat91 05:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • That's only the case in one section ("Reception") and is used to back up general claims about how reviewers regarded the game with lots of specific examples, apparently. It's hard to criticize an article for being too well-referenced, isn't it? Furthermore the sources cited tend to be ones already used earlier in the article; it makes sense that if you use a source once, and then there are other points in the article where you can back something else up with the same source, you'd do so. A potential way to be more tidy without losing the referencing would be to have a single citation at the end of all these sentences and then, within that citation, give as many references as desired ("for examples of this criticism, see A, B, C, D, E, and F."). Everyking 12:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'd like to explore ways to do that. This is really a special case since referencing is a good thing, but how far can the aesthetic envelope be pushed? --Zeality 13:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Have a look at W. S. Gilbert - We used multiple citations regularly. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem should be fixed now that I've trimmed questionable reviews. I've left a message. --Zeality 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think it's a great article. The number of references used should not be a reason not to promote this article. Personally I think that it would be better to have a MediaWiki feature which would enable readers to hide the references if they prefer. Anyway, great job on the article. jaco♫plane 16:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. --Zeality 16:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Although im quite new here, I believe this is a great article that deserves to be a FA. Armanalp 16:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Welcome. --Zeality 16:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - too many portions of in-universe information, per WP:FICT. — Indon (reply) — 16:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Investigating... I've trimmed certain fetch quest information and other fluff. I haven't made stark, major incisions, but I've left notes on Indon's talk page. --Zeality 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply:
    • The plot is stil very looong. Consider to cut it into minimum and leave the whole plot into Wikibook. Please read: Wikipedia:Fiction#Making_good_use_of_Wikibooks_and_Wikisource.
    • Needs a major copyedit. Please read again WP:WAF.

— Indon (reply) — 11:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Argue against per WP:FA? 1b, precedents of RPG game plot-heavy featured game articles [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and reminder that over half the article is analysis and out of universe information, meaning it is not solely a summary of that work's plot per WP:FICT. The plot summaries are in-universe; the rest is out. The summaries are "long" because WP:CVG believes that representing all major details of a topic includes representing its story. Aside from Japanese reviews and sales figures, all relevant and important out of universe information is there. The plot summary provides the reader with a full understanding of the game's story without sacrificing anything. --Zeality 14:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. This badly needs a copyedit. There's lots of choppy prose (the second paragraph of the lead is a good example; lots of short sentences with lots of use of "it", with a sentence about the sequel crammed in between sentences about the critical reception), lots of names of games not italicized, and three totally unnecessary blockquotes in the story section. Also, there are three music samples (why do we need three when one would suffice?), and some of the reviews are from very shady sources (I've never heard of half of these sites, and I thought epinions was just random user reviews). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the other stuff is trivial, but I've modeled the prose after Tony's guide on encyclopedic writing. This is a comparison to another FA:

snip examples

The sentences are concise and grammatically sound. There are few additive words in the article, and all are very short (such as also, too, and maybe a couple howevers). I'm not sure how I can fix this; I've spent the last few months shaping my prose in this fashion to avoid bloated sentences, unnecessary words, excess clauses and circumlocution in general. Chrono Trigger, Chrono Cross, and Frank Klepacki are written in the same style. --Zeality 18:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the story and the gameplay, but the lead still isn't very good and neither is the criticism section. It feels very choppy and stilted and there's way too many sentences beginning with "It". Also, "Impact" shouldn't be italicized; it's not a long-form work. I would guess than minigames get quotes or just proper noun capitalization; whatever you do, be consistent. A little nitpick; abbreviations aren't usually okay, but it's okay to refer to a CD as a CD instead of "Compact Disk." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to make things more streamlined, appealing, and uniform throughout the article. The shady ones come from sites Game Rankings link to. I think I can solve the aesthetic issue by cutting them out of sweeping critical statements. I still may leave one or two in if certain assertions or quotations are pretty dependent upon them. --Zeality 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Just remember that not everything on Gamerankings is reliable; lots of one-man or two-man shows get in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

One non-mainstream assertion is still there; specifically, the note about the game slowing down in certain places. With Tony and your advice I've copyedited the article. The reception section should flow much easier. I've trimmed Kabuking, but may I keep Festival Temple just to illustrate the soundtrack's style? The musical numbers are pretty unique, so they aren't totally representative of 90% of the game's music. Lastly, the italics issues should be fix. --Zeality 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll take another look at this when I'm ready to read it carefully, but I already see some mistakes: italicize "the Legend of Zelda series" like "the Legend of Zelda series" not "the Legend of Zelda series". Only italicize the proper name. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just noting for viewers that I've had four people look it over and correct typos (I made some of the edits). Since 10-31, I've also added a sequel section and addressed questions presented blow. --Zeality 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - You're going to have to give some indication to how this fared commercially, how many units did it sell? In what regions? It'd also be nice if some Japanese reviews could be sourced, such as from Famitsu. And I'm not really a fan of [1][29][32][5][3][30][15][33] as mentioned above. Just a few is enough to back up the claim, not listing every single source which agreed. - Hahnchen 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I wish to god someone here had Famitsus or knew someone who did; FF4's FAC process suffered a similar objection. I've searched sales data and haven't come up with anything (not even from VGCharts). Unlike our recent heavy-hitters, MNSG is relatively obscure and the gaming press has had little reason to discover its sales figures. --Zeality 18:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I may have found figures. Still seeing. --Zeality 18:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Just you you realize that VGCharts is never an appropriate source - VGCharts is never an appropriate source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'm going to investigate JP gaming sites once the Compendium's translator gets back to me. Numerical ratings alone should help, though I'll try to get some substantive statements as well. Still nothing on sales figures. --Zeality 19:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I was able to add three statements to the article from Konami press releases. Specifically, the game was popular enough to warrant the creation of an animated television show. The search continues tomorrow. I found some high-traffic Japanese game sites but they don't have anything that far back. I'm hoping to find more in that area. Finally, the sales figures thing will probably end up inactionable...I've pored over their financial reports and haven't found a thing. --Zeality 04:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found review sites and added statements and reinforcements from three. I have no idea of their notability, but I made sure that they didn't allow external users to comment, covered several games, and had a rating system. Change in reception section. Again, nothing for sales figures... --Zeality 18:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an update; Hanchen has found "Shrine of Data", a Japanese site that kept records of sales figures until recently. I posted at WP:CVG concerning its reliability (Perfect Dark uses it as well). This just leaves Famitsu. --Zeality 22:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• comment - if konami is publicly owned you may be able to find something if they release yearly statements on their website. nintendo does this, and while it's time consuming to find, you can know straight from the horse's mouth how well many of their games did. -Zappernapper 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict) glad i was right, lol
• Question -- for other reviews more than for the nominator -- with regards to the using too many references for the same statement, would it be acceptable to use a single footnote which lists the references used for a statement? That seems like it would be easier to read. Personally, I'm curious, because FA has seemingly accepted similar generalization from multiple references before (statements like "critics have said" followed by multiple references to critics making the claim) but there's no obvious way to do it when the claim requires a lot of backup. -- Bailey^(talk) 21:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not badly written at all, but could do a run-through with someone else's fresh eyes to clean up the writing here and there. I certainly wouldn't oppose this one just on the basis of 1a.
  • "Mystical Ninja was considered a hybrid of Super Mario 64 and the Legend of Zelda series.[1]"—"considered TO BE a hybrid" would be better, but I wonder why you can't just make the statement, since you have a reference citation and you don't say who did the considering. "Mystical Ninja was (?is) a hybrid of ...".
  • This is fussy, but "only" should be correctly positioned, typically later rather than earlier in a clause: "Players can only control one out of four characters at a time." --> "Players can control only one out of four characters at a time." See why?
  • The "his or her" thing is a real problem in English. Take this: "If a character loses all his or her heart points, he or she restarts at the entrance to that particular field map and the player's lives are reduced. If the player loses all his or her lives,...". There are two solutions to this ungainliness. One is to pluralise (my preference unless it causes problems): If characters lose all OF their heart points, they restart at the entrance to that particular field map, with reduced numbers of lives." (Check my hunch at the end: "reduced lives" is fuzzy.) The other solution is to stretch the grammar by using "they" and "their" for a singular subject, which is increasingly considered to be acceptable. I'd try to avoid this, but it's certainly better than lots of "his or her". Another solution is "his/her" and "s/he", which I use sometimes, but it's not all that great, is it.
  • "Players can also visit towns, which are safe from enemies." "Also" could be removed; it's the start of a paragraph, too.
  • "dragon-utilizing ferry service"—ouch, "utilise" is one of the ugliest words in the language. Can you reword it somehow. "Using" is the typical replacement, but maybe "dragon-powered" or "-pulled"? Tony 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a general round of copyediting; the reception and lead should be improved. I've made an appeal on WP:CVG's talk page for a little help. --Zeality 14:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Can't you collapse the references for the game text into a single citation? This is currently being discussed at WP:CVG; I suggest that you reference a page with a dump of the game's script. Of course, secondary sources are always preferred over citations of the game itself, but I understand such secondary sources probably don't exist for Mystical Ninja Goemen. --Tristam 06:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I started the discussion anew on CVG's talk page since the last was contained in a separate topic. I'll change per recommendations there. --Zeality 17:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This sentence kind of bugged me:
• Several reviewers and writers smirked at Konami's plot summary—one interviewer even laughed out loud after the director of the game revealed story details.

The first part isn't so bad, but the bolded text.. is this truly notable/encyclopedic? I understand that sometimes individual reviews are referenced for a particular statement but it just seems wrong to be that specific. Not that I have any particular WP guideline to cite... JayMars 15:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really; I'll remove it. Came from an interview at IGN. --Zeality 17:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Image:MysticalNinjaStarringGoemon.jpg does not have a source. I will evaluate the article later. Thunderbrand 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I did some searching and found that it came from a site. I'm trying to have a fan scan a new image. --Zeality 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Overall, nice work. Thunderbrand 21:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --Zeality 21:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Get the Red Links out. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That's taken care of. --Zeality 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think the external link to Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon at the Internet Movie Database is a bit pointless but apart from that, I think its great. Timkovski 12:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. --Zeality 14:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I just realized that I never actually voted on this, just tracked the progress of its FAC. Well, now I have. --PresN 19:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing. --Zeality 21:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Leaf

Self-Nom I been working in the article since June. It is a WP:GA and it been though a peer review in August. I would try to fix any concerns you guys have. One last comment, I can't find a free image for Leaf, so I have to use a fair use image. I would avoid placing the article in the front page until a free image can be found if promoted. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Object. I think it's a fairly good article, but I have a few concerns:
  • "College career" says that his 33 touchdowns was a "record." Was it a school, conference, season, NCAA or some other kind of record?

Fixed, from same sitation as #6 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • The third paragraph under College career needs some citations.

I deleted the whole paragraph as PoV in a way Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • First paragraph, second and third sentences of "1998 Draft" need citations.

Added sitation for the third sentence, same citation can be used for the second, it was a trade with the Cardinals. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Last sentence of the first paragraph in the "NFL Career-San Diego Chargers" section needs a citation.

Removed sentence as irrelvant, and not much info found, I was planning to find out if the Manning article on wikipedia has the info and a valid ciation for it but it didn't which was strange. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • A lot of use of the word "get" as a verb (When Harbaugh got injured...).

Partically fixed, not strong copyeditor. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Subsequent career and retirement", first paragraph, needs a citation and the last sentence in the second paragraph of the same section needs a citation.

done for both. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • "Personal life and legacy", first paragraph, last sentence, needs a citation.

Done, I used an example where it is used, there are over 1,000 more in google. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cla68 01:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object - per Cla68 above. Also:
  • However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure, which according to critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic. Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history.[3] Ouch! Might want use some more sources that are cited later in the article in Personal life and legacy if you're going to use the phrase "widely considered". Also, where are the references for those critics?

That one is hard, it probaly makes me use multiple of those refs at once, Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Those stats in the first paragraph of the college career section needs some citations.

Will add from the six ref. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Also in that same paragraph, two sentences in a row start with "He also".

Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • ...the clock literally ran out on Washington State. That would make for a real interesting game! Let's avoid misusing the word "literally".

Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • the Heisman Trophy, which is given annually to the best college football player. Could use some qualification there on what the Heisman is, as I'm sure there's usually a lot of contention over whether or not a recipient really is the "best" college football player. :) That, or just delete the last part of that sentence.

Explained by User:Stilgar135 Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Spotty and inconsistent prose, the worst of which is far from meeting criteria 1a. And remember, the passive tense is avoided by good writers. :)

Gzkn 03:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Changed to Support after the CE by Cla68. Still would like to see a different source for Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history such as the ESPN one.
• Will fix the citation parts, I fixed some, I had the same problem with the Selena FAC which I don't know how it passed, can't copyedit for my life and can't find copyeditors. I disagree with the Heisman Trophy part though, it's the best award a player can get in college football. The detail someone can find in the regular article. Also I'll likely delete the critics part, as it's many different refs put into one, can't find the exact ref that describe all three. The bust part can be found in most refs. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• I placed a copyedit tag on the top of the page, the tag is mostly useless though as it takes months at times to find one. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up, it's almost there. Add the citations that we mentioned, find someone to copyedit it for you, and that might do it. Cla68 13:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Jaranda, I'd do it if I weren;t so bad at it, but there are a couple people who volunteered at WP:1FAPQ to do copyediting stuff, if you left a note on their talk pages, you might have some luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object per the following two concerns: See additional comments below.

• "The sports network ESPN listed Leaf first on their list of the 25 Biggest Sports Flops between 1979-2004". There is a citation listed after this statement in the "personal life and legacy" section, but the citation is a link to Pro Football Weekly that doesn't mention anything about ESPN or Ryan Leaf being one of the 25 biggest sports flops.

• It had the ESPN ref, but with ref name was the same as another one, so fixed. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• "Leaf is widely considered one of the biggest busts in NFL history" in the introductory paragraph. This is a pretty strong statement to make about a living person, so I'd definitely like to see a better citation on that claim than a link to a staff reporter's column in the Cincinnati Post which mentions Ryan Leaf only in a couple of the paragraphs.Neil916 (Talk) 10:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• In British English we don't use the word "bust" in this context (at least not that I'm aware of). I understand it from the context but didn't have a clue what you were talking about. A "bust" is a pair of breasts or being arrested! I appreciate that you're quoting a source directly, otherwise I'd ask for an alternate word to be used. --kingboyk 18:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Every ref has Leaf has a bust, no way I'm placing a million refs on that one sentence, the ESPN one above can be used as a ref. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• I can't find a better ref, so I added the ESPN one, whoever reaches number one in that list must be a all-time bust, as ESPN one of the most reliable sources of sports there is. There is also over 171,000 google hits on Leaf and bust. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• The citation doesn't support the claim. It would be like citing a claim like "Rasheed Wallace is widely considered to be the biggest time-bomb in the NBA" based upon this citation [14]. Either find an unbiased source supporting the claim (I doubt you'll find one) or tone it down quite a bit. The same issue goes for the previous sentence in that same paragraph: "However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure, which according to critics was largely due to his immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic.". The critics' claim isn't supported with a citation, nor is it addressed later in the article. As a whole, the article still seems too POV for me, too much of a Leaf-bashing article. Why, for example, in the last paragraph of the San Diego Chargers history, is "wins" in quotation marks? What's the difference between a win and a "win"? I'm no fan of Ryan Leaf, and I'm sorry to object so strenuously given the amount of effort you've obviously put in, but Wikipedia articles, especially featured articles, need to remain factual and unbiased, and this article needs more work to reach that point. This will be a difficult task, since Leaf made few friends and many enemies in the media, so finding unbiased sources is definitely going to take more than a google search.Neil916 (Talk) 18:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know how win got in quotes so I fixed it. The immaturity, arrogance, and poor work ethic takes a few refs, mostly the same refs used in the article, will reword, but the main problem with Leaf is that he is only known for being a bust, espcially being the second pick in 98 draft, I personally doubt the refs are biaed though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed both sentences. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• We're getting closer. Sorry to drag my feet about this, but the article as it reads still comes across as very anti-Leaf. The article doesn't need to nominate him for sainthood, but it needs to stick to the facts and trim out the judgmental verbage. Undoubtedly, many of those opinions were found in the original sources you use, but you need to be neutral, whereas a sports columnist can just pile on the judgement. Some examples, (a non-exhaustive list due to a short time window I have for WP at the moment): (bolded words and phrases are examples of where POV is coming through)

• However, despite his athleticism, his time as a pro was short and marked by injuries and failure.
• Since that time, Manning has become a star player and a possible Hall of Famer for the Colts, while Leaf's short career was spotted with poor game play and off-field antics.
• San Diego's high hopes for Leaf were soon dashed, as his rookie season was marked by bad performances
• But, in the third game of the season, he completed only one of fifteen passes for a mere four yards and fumbled three times in a loss against the Kansas City Chiefs.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Leaf started the first two games of the 2000 season, completing less than half of his pass attempts and throwing for five interceptions and only one touchdown.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• When backup Moses Moreno went down with a strained knee ligament, the Chargers were forced to play Leaf more.

• Fixed Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Following more poor performances and injury problems, he was released by the Chargers following the season, with a record of only four wins as a starter in three seasons.

• Will try to rephase Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• After mediocre performances in the Buccanneers's four preseason games, the club asked Leaf to accept a lower salary
• Leaf's career quarterback rating was 50.00, a very low number—the league average between 2000 and 2003 was 78.9.

• I don't see a NPOV problem there, it's compares his quarterback rating Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Leaf is considered one of the biggest disappointments in sports history.

• Only reason why he is known for. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Basically, there's a big difference between calling someone a failure and stating that his success on the field did not meet the expectations of sports analysts and the fans.

• Also, consider the following paragraph:

• In February 2001, Leaf married one of the Chargers cheerleaders, Nicole. They separated two years later and divorced soon after.[27] As of February 2005, Leaf was enrolled in a sports management class called Media Relations at Washington State.[28] He graduated with a bachelor's degree in arts and humanities in May 2005.[29] His brother, Brady Leaf is currently a junior quarterback for the University of Oregon.[30]

  You have essentially four unrelated ideas put into one sentence. It doesn't flow and just reads like a mish-mash of random facts that didn't fit anywhere else. Also, it implies that he got a bachelor's degree just for taking one class in media relations. Neil916 (Talk) 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Will try to fix that paragraph, the only problem is that Leaf is only known for being one of the well known failures in National Football League history, nothing else. I personally think it's as much as it gets to NPOV, neutral, and factual as possible, if all criticism is removed on Leaf, the article would be a stub then. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• I know he was a failure. But you can't say that he was a failure, you need to stick to the facts only. Calling him a failure is expressing your opinion. Here's an example (numbers made up, of course): "In his first year as a pro, Leaf had a passing rating of 32. Between 1985 and 2005, the average passer rating for first year quarterbacks in the NFL was 72, with 90% of rookies exceeding a rating of 50. Only one quarterback, Joe Schmoe, a tenth-round draft pick from Squashed Armadillo University, had a lower rating during that period." or, "Coach Rogers commented after the game that he didn't really want to continue playing Leaf at quarterback, but the injury situation left him no choice." Nothing but facts, but the reader gets to make up his own mind, and conclude, of course, that he was a failure. Show me, don't tell me. My opinion is that the article still has quite a ways to go, and that it's not the best it could be. But, judging by the lack of agreement from other reviewers, I'm the only one who feels that way, so take it for what it's worth. Neil916 (Talk) 06:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support well written, well referenced. - Mike | Talk 05:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object well-referenced, concise and well-organized. But I don't think it's really brilliant prose. I have done a bit of copyediting but it still needs improvements in terms of flow. Too many short sentences, too many "Leaf did this. Then Leaf did that". But should make it eventually. Pascal.Tesson 19:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—not the required "professional" standard of prose. For example:
  • "After having led his high school,..."—Spot the redundant word.
  • "67 year Rose Bowl drought"—I think American editors would insist on a hyphen after "67".
  • " He finished third in voting, behind winner Charles Woodson of Michigan, and fellow quarterback Peyton Manning of Tennessee"—Remove comma after "Michigan". Yet there's a shortage of commas overall.
  • "He also was selected as"—awkward syntax.
  • "But, in the third game of the season, he completed one of fifteen passes"—No, start with "However,". It would be nice to see all numbers of two or more digits numericalised.
  • Ellision dots need spaces either side unless begun by a real stop in the quote: "Don't...talk to me".
  • "After news of Leaf's retirement in 2002, Harrison was quoted as saying,"—"After hearing news of"?

Please find someone who's fresh to the topic to copy-edit it. Locate copy-editors by researching the edit history pages of similar articles, esp. FAs. Tony 12:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw, been too busy lately that I been ignoring the FAC, likely won't work on the article til chrismas break, if lucky Thanks anyways Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] K-os

A self-nomination, I worked on this article mostly in my sandbox and expanded the article to a good standard in my opinion. I have added sound samples and pictures and think this article is ready for a nomination of such magnitude. The only outstanding problem I see is the missing chart positions for the singles which I did inquire about to an experienced user but the sites he provided did not provide any information. So I'm not really sure about that part. But never the less after a week at the normal and Wikiproject Biography peer review I do think the singles are of tiny importance and think this article is of featured quality. So please I would like to hear any outstanding criticism and I'll try to do everything I can to improve the article based on those suggestions. - Tutmosis 23:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The lead is a mess. First of all, the initial sentence needs the word "on" (or something similar) between k-os's real name and his date of birth, and there should be a comma after Ontario. It repeats the fact that he's a rapper and singer in the first two sentences, and it also repeats the fact that he's a producer. In fact, the sentence about his work as a producer should read "a producer as well as a musician," not the other way around. In the second paragraph, singles (such as "Musical Essence") should be in quote marks, not italics. The same sentence ends "...and the 1996 Rise Like the Sun." Aside from the fact that, again, the song titled should be in quotes, that fragment doesn't make any sense. (How about "1996's 'Rise Like the Sun'" or "'Rise Like the Sun', released in 1996"?) Then, just as song titles need quotes and not italics, albums need italics (as opposed to no accenting, as is currently presented for Exit and Joyful Rebellion). The phrase "garnered platinum status in Canada with six singles" is awkward; the singles are separate from the album's platinum status. A comma is missing in the second-to-last sentence of the lead between "reviews" and "it". If the first two paragraphs have so many problems, why should I even critique the rest of the article? -- Kicking222 02:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support. Kicking222 is right about the repetitions in the lead and about the use of quotations and italics for the songs (I checked MoS and MOS:ITALICS). Nevertheless, I think these issues can swiftly be fixed. Under the condition that this will happen (I underscore the conditionality), I support this article, because, in general, it is nicely done.--Yannismarou 08:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above Okay I fixed all the wierd phrasing in the lead and I made all the albums italics while all the singles were put in quotation marks. - Tutmosis 13:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You have my support.--Yannismarou 20:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

More comments At this point, I'm pretty much just ready to oppose. Some of the music samples show up twice in the article. There are still tons of grammar (and assorted other) problems. Citations should only be placed at the end of sentences (after the period), not in the middle. "k-os emerged on the Canadian music scene with the single "Musical Essence" released in 1993 and "Rise Like The Sun" in 1996." That sentence makes little sense- those are two singles, not one single, and there are a bunch of commas missing. The first sentence of "Early Life" is half new info and half repitition of info we just got from the lead. Too many phrases are repeated; for example, the lead states "k-os emerged on the Canadian music scene", while the "Music Career" section begins "k-os first emerged in the music industry in 1993". The sentence "k-os says that growing up he was a big fan of New Order and Depeche Mode, as well as Boogie Down Productions and Slick Rick." is unsourced, unless it uses the same reference as the next sentence, which is about him going to college to please his father (a seemingly odd non-sequitur either way). The image of k-os after the Juno Awards is almost certainly not fair use. "After the Canadian release of the album k-os joined the tour with India.Arie across United States to promote his album" needs a comma between "album" and "k-os", and the sentence is awkward- it should read "toured with India.Arie". "k-os released on August 24, 2004 his sophomore album, Joyful Rebellion." is also awkward. "Canadian acts like Rascalz and Ghetto Concept." should have "such as" or "including" as opposed to "like". And the list goes on. Is the article comprehensive about k-os's life and career, written from a neutral POV, and factually accurate? It certainly seems to be. But is it well-written? At the very least, it could use a very thorough copyedit. -- Kicking222 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I gave the article a copyedit and adressed some things you pointed out. Considering the fact that I wrote it, its hard for me to improve it unless I know exactly what I did wrong. Unfortunately couple things I'm a little confused about in your comment. I dont see any samples showing up twice, except they are listed again in their own section at the end of the article. The citation in the middle of a sentence is only because the first part of that sentence has a different source then the second part. So I don't see the point to break this pattern. The lead mentions nothing from "Early Life" except he was born in Toronto, so I don't know what you mean its restating the same information. I'm going to need more information on how the image is not fair use. Anyway, thats it. - Tutmosis 14:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not "forbidden" to use citations in the middle of the sentence. It is recommended not to do it, but, when it is necessary in order to attribute the right emphasis on the specific part of the sentence one citates, then one can definitely do it (without overdoing it of course).--Yannismarou 17:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea I figured, but never the less if its a problem I'll be welcome to change it. To me it doesn't seem to be causing any problem reading or understanding the article, if anything it makes it easier to see where a specific statement came from. - Tutmosis 18:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• The writing is probably just good enough for a FA, so I won't object. But there are little things like:
  • "The album received positive reviews but performed poorly in sales." "Performed" in this other sense is precarious here when a musical performance is at issue.
  • Bit overlinked. Why is "United States" linked at all? (Canada isn't.) Why are Toronto, Vancouver and Ontario linked repeatedly, sometimes at short intervals? Use the links strategically by rationing them—then the page won't be spattered with blue, and readers will be more likely to hit them. Tony 12:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the double wikilinks you pointed out and rephrased 2 instances of "performed in sales". - Tutmosis 18:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005 United States Grand Prix

I have renominated this article because the article has had a major re-write since it last failed and meets all the criteria in my opinion. Kingjamie 19:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - per nom Kingjamie 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lacking in sources. See, for example, the Team principals' plan and Race report sections. Gzkn 01:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I strongly recommend the use of American English spelling in this article, as it is about a US event. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment That would take it out of sync with the majority - but not all - of the other Formula One articles. UK English is the usual concensus. We should also note that although the race took place in the US, of the significant individuals concerned only Tony George is American. I'm excluding sports broadcasters from that assessment. None of the teams and only one race driver (Jacques Villeneuve) is North American. (Scott Speed was only involved as a third driver). Neither of the tyre companies is American. Formula One itself is largely based in Europe and is owned by a UK company.

From WP:MoS: For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic.

Reversing that test case, we should only change this one if it concerns an American topic. While I agree that it can be seen as an American topic, it is not unequivocally so. At least as strong a case can be made for UK English (stronger in my view). Recommended procedure in that case is to leave the article as it is.

A final point - what we're really talking about here is the word 'tyre/tire'. If we swap to 'tire' throughout, we will have to change the spelling used in two direct quotes from the International Sporting Regulations (see FIA's reaction), or quote them accurately from the source text and have them inconsistent with the rest of the document. Cheers. 4u1e 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good argument. I'll defer, but my preference remains.

While the event was in the US, the issue is international and so therefore is the article. The key players in the affair are British (Mosley & Ecclestone), French (Michellin) and Australian (Stoddard).Damiancorrigan 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

--Spangineer^ws (háblame) 00:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Comment- This bit makes no sense: "Out of all of the Television channels who broadcasted the grand prix, only ITV decided to screen the race and at the end of broadcast, the channel's anchorman Jim Rosenthal apologised for what viewers saw. Italian channel Rai 1 aired the race too, with comentators Gianfranco Mazzoni and Ivan Capelli trying to understand what led to the withdrawal and to explain it to the public. Austrian channel Orf 1 broadcasted the entire race as well, citing contractual obligations to do so...". How if ITV were the only one out of all the TV broadcasters to show the race did RAI 1 and ORF 1 air the race as well. I'm not happy with "their witty exchange of jokes made the race coverage actually rather entertaining at times.". It sounds like an opinion to me. The entire Team principals' plan section contains one source. More sources are needed. Also "At the 2005 Champ Car World Series Grand Prix of Cleveland, held one week after the US Grand Prix, free admission was granted to all bearers of ticket stubs of the US Grand Prix." could do with a source.Alexj2002 12:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Done the champ car source Kingjamie 22:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added one ref for the "Team principals' plan" section please can somebody else help me in finding some more. Kingjamie 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have done these tasks now Kingjamie 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

To make the 'entertaining' comment less POV, someone could add the award ITV won for 'best sporting coverage' for that race. I'd add it myself, but I can't remember what exactly they won.Damiancorrigan 00:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Refusal of coverage still needs a copyedit. Also it mentions several stations refused coverage but only names TSN. Did any other stations refuse coverage? What did Speed do? Alexj2002 19:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Speed or any other TV stations coverage, I have also done a minor copy edit don't know if it is enough. Kingjamie 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speed aired the entire thing, FYI. The359 05:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Can you post an image which gives what the track looks like. Mercenary2k 22:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Kingjamie 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural selection

Is a GA already. Original contributors have become inactive, but it's close enough that I'll nominate. If you have any small fixes, you may very well have to do them yourselves. Just being honest here. If you don't want to fix things, a yes/no answer is probably appropriate. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment Has this had a peer review yet? That's generally a preferred first step before going straight to FAC. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

A peer review will make little difference since the article is not being actively edited by anyone. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If there's no one who's going to edit the article, it's not going to improve. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the nomination? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment far too much unreferenced text for my liking. Sandy (Talk) 21:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Object. Per above (refs, PR). In 'Social theory' see alsos in text to social darwinism and sociocolutural evolution are not very good style; I also have a problem with statement that sociocultural evolution discusses evololution of societes as analogoues to evolution of species; while some theories of socev are like this, other explore quite different models (Morgan, Durkheim, White, Marx - their models can hardly be applied to biological evolution, for example).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've just done some fairly substantial text reorganization, with very little change in content. The article was very strangely organized - there were effectively four "introduction" sections, "overview" was the 4th heading, the example came before any other discussion, and there were effectively two history sections. I think the content is fundamentally sound but it badly needs a copyedit (it reads like the original author was not a native English speaker) and there are sentences with an odd essayish tone ('not wanting to be scooped', 'potentially embarrassing situation', etc).

On the matter of citations - I disagree with any objection based on pure citation density rather than identification of specific statements or even paragraphs that need citations. For example, most of the "genetical theory" section is standard textbook material. However, the referencing here is rather uneven (leftovers from prior edit wars?) - of the article's 35 footnoted references, at least 7 are in support of specific terminological usages, which in general the article spends too much time on.

I'm willing to do some work on this article but I can't promise that it'll be quick enough for this FAC. Opabinia regalis 03:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment the lead is too short. --Peta 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evan Mecham

Article dealing with one of the more unusual political figures of the 1980s. Has been previously nominated on FAC with a more recent Peer review. Self-nom. --Allen3 ^talk 14:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Nobody seemed to be interested, so I let myself be the first one. After a quick read through - informative, interesting, looks thorough. One thing bothers me, though... only one image? --Ouro 15:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The single image is limiting, but unless some free images of Mecham are found there is little that can be done. I have made multiple searches and had a request at Wikipedia:Requested pictures for several months. To date every image located has been under tight copyright restrictions, thus forcing the use of a single fair use image. --Allen3 ^talk 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Well, in a situation like this very little can be done. Too bad all your efforts and work brought nothing. --Ouro 17:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting the Arizona State Archives or a similar body and seeing if they have anything? Newyorkbrad 01:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The current fair use image is from the state archives. Arizona law (§ARS 39-121.03) prevents the archives from releasing its images under a GFDL or Creative Commons compatible license so fair use is the best we can do. --Allen3 ^talk 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up to my support vote. Apart from the photo the rest is FA-quality if you ask me, only one thing: the first paragraph of After office reads: In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create grassroots group called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody. The purpose of this group was to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. Is it possible to reword this to reduce the amount of groups here? --Ouro 12:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The sentences now read:In 1995 Mecham became chairman of the Constitutionalist Networking Center, a group attempting to create a grassroots organization called the Constitutionally Unified Republic for Everybody (CURE). CURE's purpose was then to advocate political candidates supporting a strict interpretation of the United States Constitution. --Allen3 ^talk 13:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Sounds way better. Thanks. --Ouro 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Every sentence in the opening paragraph needs fixing.
  • First sentence is a problem: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Tension between "former" and "the 19th". Perhaps insert "was" after "and"?
  • Second sentence: "Mecham worked most of his life as the owner of ..." FOR most of his life?
  • Third sentence: "while becoming a perennial candidate making periodic runs for political office"—This is very strange.
  • "During his time as governor,"—Why not just "While governor"?

Can you get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly? Tony 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The lead has been reworked and a new copyedit has been performed on the article. As for your recommendation that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly", multiple peer review requests and requests to the Wikiproject covering the topic have had very limited success in finding editors and reviewers willing to go over the article. Even this FAC nomination has only had limited participation despite the request having been active for 17 days. --Allen3 ^talk 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Try researching the edit histories of similar FAs and others. Identify contributors who effectively copy-edited, particularly during the FAC process. Ask them each to spend 20 mins of their time on this one, nominating a particular section, perhaps. Or ask them to do the whole lot. Tony 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The FAC instructions require all objections to reference a specific rationale that can be addressed. I have been making period attempts to gather additional feedback on the article, both on and off Wikipedia, for close to a year. Unless you have some evidence that additional contributors willing to assist in a timely manner exist, it is clear that your recommendation in nothing more than an attempt to add further delay and not an actionable objection. If you have any actionable items that have not yet been addressed please provide them, but please do not add any more objections that can not be addressed. --Allen3 ^talk 02:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what part wasn't actionable? Tony 10:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You request that I "get someone to run through the whole text thoroughly". As detailed above, multiple good faith efforts have been made through the available Wikipedia channels. Unless you have some special method to overcome Raul's 3^rd law, such a request is not actionable as there is no way to force some other contributor to perform the requested effort. If you do have an effective method of obtaining additional skilled contributors when needed, please share your method with the community as it would be a boon to all seeking to improve Wikipedia. --Allen3 ^talk 11:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this game. I've provided more than enough evidence that the text fails 1a. It's your problem. If you're saying that you can't edit well enought to satisfy the criterion, and can't find anyone else who's interested in doing so, the nomination fails. Simple. Tony 11:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• Now, to reinforce my opinion that the whole text fails 1a, let's go through the lead that you say above "has been reworked".
  • There are still problems with the clash of tenses in the first sentence: "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) is a former American politician and was the 19th Governor of Arizona." Why not "Evan Mecham (IPA: [ˈmik.ɑm]; born 12 May 1924) was an American politician and the 19th Governor of Arizona." Then all we need to address is the category problem: if he was a state governor, you don't need to tell us that he was an American politician—one is a subset of the other. The opening sentence is still a mess.
  • "As governor, Mecham was plagued by controversy and he became the first U.S. governor to simultaneously face removal from office through impeachment, a scheduled recall election, and felony indictment." It may appear a small point, but I'll say it anyway: remove "he". Should "a" be inserted before "felony"?
  • "His victory during the 1986 election began with a surprise win of his party's nomination followed by a split of the opposition party during the general election." Um ... does "victory" refer to the fact that he won the election? If so, "during" is not the right word ("in"). You refer to "his party" and "the opposition party", but we still don't know whether he was a Democrat or a Republican. You have "during the 1986 election" and "during the general election", raising issues of repetition and lack of cohesion ("general" = the same, 1986 election?)
  • "While governor, Mecham became known for a number of statements and actions that were ..."—You could remove "a number of", which adds nothing at all to the meaning.
  • "causing damage to the state's tourism industry by the cancellation of multiple conventions."—"Damaging" would be better than "causing damage". "Through" rather than "by". What do you mean by "multiple"? Several simultaneous conventions?
  • "A rift between the governor and fellow Republicans in the Arizona Legislature also developed after a series of ..."—Remove "also" as redundant, unless there were other rifts between him and his party colleagues that you're not telling us about.
  • "charges of obstruction of justice and misuse of government funds"—Insert "the" before "obstruction" and before "misuse".
  • "A later criminal trial acquitted Mecham on related charges." I'm pretty sure it should be "of", not "on".
  • "and made his final runs for Governor and to the U.S. Senate"—run to the Senate?

Just about every sentence in this supposedly revamped lead requires fixing. A cursory look through the rest of the text shows many further problems. This is why I contend that the article fails 1a. Tony 10:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kroger Babb

I began work on this article, a self-nomination, at the beginning of this year. Since then, I've been putting my interlibrary loan librarian on notice with the amount of books I've been able to find on the subject, and had a friend send me materials from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Library. The article has been through a peer review, two separate independent reviews, and has been promoted to Good Article status. As for the FA standards:

1. It is well written, and comparable to other FAs in tone in my opinion. It is quite possibly as comprehensive as can be following the amount of research I've done at this time, and I'll expand on that in a moment. With two dozen individual references spanning five-plus decades and multiple citations from many of them, it's very well cited. I believe it's neutral, and there hasn't been any edit warring other than myself and my typo-weilding fingers.
2. MOS is followed, as far as I can tell.
3. The images are descriptive and appropriate, and have been reviewed by three other people prior to this nomination for relevance and proper tags.
4. The length is a hair under the 32k mark, mostly due to keeping things concise. It would not be our longest FA by any stretch, but obviously wouldn't be the shortest. The article is of an appropriate length given the subject and available information.

According to the GA review, the reviewer was "truly amazed by the easily-accessible tone...and meticulous references," saying that it "is the sort of article to which all others should aspire." Furthermore, going into this creation, the only other detailed web reference available was an article at Reason Magazine by Joe Bob Briggs, and I believe, in my reviews, that this article may be the most comprehensive and factual biography of Kroger Babb on the internet. I'm hoping the community agrees with the assessment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• First, good work, clearly a good article. But you do still have work to do before it becomes the best it can be. As I may have written before: remember, you asked for this. :-).
  • • Indeed! Thanks, and thoughts are inline.
  • Wikilinks could be in better places. For example, under History, Kroger is around his nickname, though it leads to the article about the store, which is mentioned in the same sentence. In the header American is not linked to United States, though that is probably its sense; it is instead linked to in front of Library of Congress, from where it could probably be removed safely, since there is only one Library of Congress (at least only one we have an article about). Hollywood Reporter should be linked where it first appears - I know you link to it from the refs, but that is at the bottom of the article, not first. Uncle Tom's Cabin doesn't get a wikilink? BoxOffice has the second mention linked, not the first. Mildred, his wife, isn't linked the first mention, then linked twice in the personal life section.
    • I get it. I think I fixed most of these. Uncle Tom's Cabin in particular wasn't wikilinked at first mention for consistency, but I worked around it quite well, I think.
      • Good. Two more: the "IRS figures" link to IRS should probably just be around IRS, and Common-law marriage should link there, not just to Common-law.
        • Done and done.
  • Refs after commas are all over the place. Personally, I think they look better after periods, citing an entire sentence. I'm not sure if the style guide says so outright, but I think it at least implies it. This is probably the worst offender, one sentence with three clauses each cited separately: "The third highest grossing film of its decade,[6] Mom and Dad, according to Babb, made $63,000 for every $1,000 the original investors contributed,[7] and the Los Angeles Times estimated that the film grossed anywhere between $40 million and $100 million dollars.[4]" I think it would just look better with the 3 refs all together at the end. An alternative is to break up the long sentence into several shorter ones.
    • I agree on the refs, but the MOS wants all refs after punctuation. I had someone fly through and move all of them on me. As for the broken up references, I had a professor once who pretty much broke me of what you're asking for. I'll change it if it's make or break, but I find it more useful to know exactly what references what.
      • I can accept that.
  • "exploitation" seems used in lots of places, mostly unsourced, and it's a pretty negative term. Since he's not alive, it's not quite as crucial we not defame the guy per WP:BLP, but since this is aiming to be a Featured Article, an example to others, sourcing it strongly is still a good idea. Who uses the term in reference to him and his work? Surely he didn't.
    • From what I've been able to read, noth from Friedman and various articles and bios, it certainly wasn't negative to them. It's used all over the place to describe the films and the work, it's entirely normal and I'd probably fight for the use if he was still alive, given the amount of information I have. With that said, I did perhaps overuse it a bit and cut back.
      • Then source it, please. A couple of sentences that say either that exploitation was a commonly used term, and not considered especially negative, or is an accepted scholarly term now, in either case with a ref or two. I believe you completely, but to someone who is not familiar with the subject it sounds like an attack. I imagine at least one of your sources that use the term in their title will have a section that says something like that that.
        • Sourced. It was hard choosing one, heh, so I went with the guy who did the films with him.
          • So helped actually originate the term? Very good.
  • Also, you do seem to be overusing the term. By the third repetition, I at least felt that I got the point; unless it's unusually exploitative, you probably can just write "film" at least half the time after the first few mentions.
    • Fixed.
      • Actually you seem to only have replaced one mention (with B-movie). But I won't press the point.
        • No problem. I think I replaced 4 where it felt odd.
  • Similarly or more so for the last sentence in the header: "intended to titillate audiences rather than educate them, with the goal of maximizing profits through the use of marketing gimmicks." That sounds pretty defamatory. If he were alive, that could be a libel lawsuit waiting to happen. He's not, but still - either tone it down, or give some pretty strong citations.
    • Essentially, at least half of the citations offered back this up, and it's not really defamatory at all. I will take a look in my texts at home and see if I can't move a reference up to make it clear that this is entirely normal, but it's pretty standard - that's why they peddled this crap to begin with. d;-) I see why it's confusing to someone who's unfamiliar, though, so I'll see what I can do with it.
      • The exploitation reference makes it good enough, I guess.
  • "or due to his father's preference for B. H. Kroger coffee[4] (as claimed by biographer Kenneth Turan)." Is the ref about/from Turan? If so, I'd move the ref after the period at the end there, otherwise it seems you're citing the coffee, or his father or something else ambiguous.
    • Fixed.
  • "at one point gaining a mention in Ripley's Believe It Or Not for refereeing a record number of youth sports games" That's pretty impressive, actually -- can you be more specific? How many, what kind of sport, at what age?
    • What's written is what I know. I've been unable, to this point, find out exactly what he referreed or what edition of Ripley's he was in. The day I find it will be a wonderful one for me, but for now, the mention in a number of publications is all I have, and what I referenced with my tag here was the most detailed one I had.
      • Accepted.
  • "While taking jobs in sportswriting and reporting at a local newspaper in his 20s, he achieved success following his promotion to publicity manager at the Chakeres-Warners movie theaters" This is confusing - what do the newspaper jobs have to do with the movie theater? If nothing, split the sentence.
    • Fixed, I think. Any extra pointers on how to handle this would be nice.
      • Good enough.
  • "In one promotion, he gave two bags of groceries to paying ticketholders in the theaters.[2] These experiences led him to the exploitation film business." Again, seems like a non sequitur. I know you're trying to link the publicity manager job to the film business, which at least sounds reasonable (if someone else says so, otherwise it could be WP:OR) but the groceries sentence is getting in the way. It seems you're saying that giving away groceries is the path to lewd films. "Ma'am, let me show you how to really use that cucumber..."
    • Well, the intent is that his unique promotional style at the theater (using an example of the groceries) lead him to the bigger exploitation film biz. Maybe it's not clear to an outsider, but it's not meant to be a non-sequitor as much as an example of what he did. If I had more examples to give, I'd add them in, but that's all I've got.
      • Good enough.
  • "Babb joined Cox and Underwood" When? Seems important as the start of his main career, if you can find a date, or at least a year, that would be good.
    • I have an approximate date, which I added.
      • Good.
  • "Dust to Dust, which was a reworking of another movie, High School Girl with a childbirth scene at the end." Which film had the childbirth scene? DtD or HSG? Was the reworking mainly to add the childbirth scene, to remove it, or to do something else? Was it a particularly or unusually explicit childbirth scene? Was this unusual at the time?
    • Just a random medical reel, pretty bland in the grand scheme of things. I've clarified the sentence here.
      • Good.
  • "parting ways with Babb,[2] so Babb began his own company, Hygienic Productions." Does the ref really cite parting ways without citing how he started HP? If so, then you probably want to find a cite that says that the start was a direct result of the parting ways, otherwise it's WP:OR to say so. If you can't find a cite, then take out the so "...parting ways with Babb. Babb began his own company, HP". That basically implies the same thing, without leaving you open to accusations of OR. On the other hand, if the ref does mention that parting ways to HP, then move it after the period. Yes, it's nitpicking. Featured Article, brilliant prose, a high target to hit.
    • Nitpick away, seriously. I know what you mean, so I've adjusted the sentence accordingly.
      • Good.
  • "Babb applied what he had learned from watching fellow presenters to the operation of Hygienic Productions, opening a headquarters in Wilmington, Ohio and hiring booking agents and advance salespeople along with out-of-work actors and comedians to act as presenters of the films.[1]" Consider splitting into two sentences: "Babb applied what he had learned ... operation of HP. He opened a headquarters in..." Otherwise you're writing that he had learned from fellow presenters that you should open a headquarters in Wilmington, Ohio. (Unless of course that is the main lesson he learned; I didn't read the sources you cite. "Boy, if you want to produce titilation in the 1920s, Ohio is the place to be. It's the cradle of sin, a den of iniquity...")
    • I think you're describing The Oh in Ohio. Anyhow, fixed.
      • Good. Oh, yes, good. Oh.
  • "Babb in the film presenting business" - I vaguely remember some advice somewhere not to repeat the article title in section headers unnecessarily
    • Those six words haunted me for a week. I have no clue how else to change it, but I don't consider it incredibly awkward. Suggestions?
      • Here it is: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Sections_and_headings: "Avoid unnecessary words or redundancy in headings: avoid a, an, and the, pronouns, repeating the article title, and so on." Suggestions? Ranging from the dry to the titilatting: "Film presenter"; "Film presentation style"; "Film marketing tactics" "Showmanship"; "Luring crowds" ...
        • Fixed this.
  • "his distribution overheard near 7%" overhead?
    • Fixed.
  • Mom and Dad seems to have an article of its own, yet you write more about it here than there. It should be the other way around. Here, you can write more about its impact on Kroger, or vice versa, but the plot should really be there. Also, you should put a See: or for the main article or something reference there.
    • The only reason that's true is because, somewhat ironically, I haven't gotten to it yet. This is true now, it won't be true by the end of November if I have any say in the matter. Until then, I'd prefer not to draw more attention to the stubby, incomplete article, although I don't know where to put the {{mainarticle}} thing anyway.
      • Unfortunately, I think you're gonna have to bite the bullet and expand it a bit, and maybe put the mainarticle thing somewhere appropriate. The way you have written the Krober Babb header, it seems like this film is his main reason for notability: "he is best known for ..." - if there is a single external article that needs to be made better, this is it. However, expanding the M&D article doesn't have to be that hard, just copy paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of this film presenter section there completely, with their references, should be under 15 minutes of work. It's not plagiarism if you're copying from yourself. :-)
        • Expanded and reworded a bit. I've adjusted it further, and the two are similar, but now I ahve a lot more to work with at the new article.
          • Good. The M&D article is actually pretty good now as well. (It still has a few of the issues mentioned here that you've fixed here, but it doesn't have to be to FA quality for this one to be.)
  • About that plot description, you seem to be overusing euphemisms a bit - "goes all the way" "her clothes no longer fit". "Has sex" and "pregnant" are more concrete and shorter.
    • I'm a little opposed to those changes because of the way the film handled those issues. If it's make or break, I'll change them, but the idea here is to get a feel for the way the films approached the subject. Perhaps some wikilinking would work as a compromise on this?
      • We can do compromise, however I followed your Joe Bob Briggs link, and here is what he says: "...life ruined by pregnancy...Elliot Forbes, an "eminent sexual hygiene commentator,"...venereal disease and pregnancy information... sex education" ; Briggs, at least, seems to use the words sex and pregnancy in this context. I would think your goal would be more directly satisfied the way Briggs does, by just saying it outright: "the film would resume with our heroine sick to her stomach, sleeping late, and discovering that her clothes no longer fit her. (The actors never use the word "pregnant.")"
        • Fixed with wikilinking and some clarity from the book.
          • Good.
  • 'letters from mayors of "none-too-distant" cities' - why is n-t-d in quotes?
    • That's direct from where it's sourced from.
      • You are quoting one rare hyphenated word? If you really want to fight to the death for it, I'll give in, but I do think "nearby" is better, "principle of least surprise" and all.
        • Fixed.
  • "wallpapering a small town with ads" - literally? In other words, he specifically used posters, and very many of them, in many places, as opposed to a few prominent posters, or word of mouth, or newspaper or other ads? Then you may want to say so, otherwise it's unclear. In fact, your big quote immediately following says "sending tabloid heralds" which seems to contradict the "wallpapering" implication.
    • I wasn't sure it was contradictory, but I adjusted the wording anyway. Thanks, Thesaurus.com!
      • Loading, huh? OK, I guess that's better.
        • I changed it to overwhelm to match the source better.
  • "causing a stir, sticking true" Mixed metaphors, overuse of cliched expressions.
    • Fixed. Remnants from an earlier version.
  • "The film became ... ubiquitous that Time Magazine...In a similar vein, Babb wrote in his pressbook for Karamoja that "When a stupid jerk tries to outsmart proven facts, he should be in an asylum, not a theater."[1]" How is that "in a similar vein" to either being ubiquitous or what Time wrote? And again, as above, what's the word "vein" doing there? "Similarly" is more precise, shorter, and less cliched.
    • Fixed, I think.
      • Partly - you got rid of "vein", which is good, but I still don't understand how the Babb quote is related to the Time quote. How is "similarly" appropriate? In fact, I don't even understand what the Babb quote means - what are the "proven facts"? The section seems to be talking about how he marketed his films, and "outsmart proven facts" seems to have nothing to do with it. Who was the "stupid jerk"? Whom was he addressing with the statement, who was supposed to read it? What's a pressbook? (Ah, I see you wrote an article for pressbook - wikilink to it, please.)
        • Fixing the wikilink (it's linked in the image, and I'm reversing that). The "stupid jerk" was general, not linked to anyone specific as much as the general ignoramus. I think I'm just going to move the line altogether.. The line has been moved to an entirely better area.
          • Much better, I understand what he was talking about now.
  • "hundreds of Elliot Forbes's" - I think 's means possessive, not plural.
    • Fixed, I think. I may have changed that about 53453 times over the course of this.
  • Elliot Forbes/Jesse Owens - please clarify - there was no real Elliot Forbes, but there was the real Jesse Owens? Or were these JO impersonators?
    • Real Jesse Owens. I think this is fixed.
      • It is fixed, but wow. I would think an extra sentence would be appropriate, given that possibly the most famous black athlete of all time, certainly of that time, had sunken to being a pitchman for semi-fraud. Was he extremely well paid? Desperate? Down on his luck? Did he actually believe he was helping the community by preaching sex ed? My oh my.
        • I'll see if I can track anything down to expand on it a bit, regardless. It was rather shocking to me, too.
  • "at the presentation of the religious Prince of Peace" - religious film Prince of Peace, I think. :-)
    • Ding. Fixed.
  • "Babb would sensualize the advertising to highlight lead actress Lila Leeds" - more specific. Would present pictures of her with few clothes on? Surrounded by flowers? In a harem costume? What?
    • Adjusted this. I know why this happened, I think it's fixed.
  • "As well as being at the forefront of the battles over censorship and the motion picture censorship system, the exploitation genre faced numerous other challenges during the 1940s and 1950s.[1]" You can't end a paragraph like that and not refer to it again! Either strike the sentence, or tell us what the other challenges were, please. Do you know the joke "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" I never found out the punchline...
    • Fixed, I think.
  • Presented by the Hollywood Rotary Club, the award was presented in honor of his accomplishments over the years prior.[10]" Presented is used twice in the same sentence.
    • Not anymore
  • The Later Films section seems to go back to films that appeared in the earlier section: Prince of Peace, She Shoulda Said no. Or maybe the earlier section has too much about films in the later section. Anyway, if you want to divide them by time period made, then you should do so.
    • This is a difficult one. I can't remove the references before because of the context they give to his style of presentation, but it makes no sense to remove them entirely from the bottom, either, because they're worth having their own description in those cases. I did this as a compromise for myself between the two.
      • I understand now, after your explanation below.
  • "Babb, following the success of Mom and Dad, renamed his company to the more general Hallmark Productions... He would later expand his operations to a larger distribution company, named "Hallmark's Big-6."[11]" - either quote a company name, or don't, but don't quote one and not the other. I believe not quoting is the preferred style, but ... don't quote me. :-)
    • Fixed.
  • "According to Babb, "Nothing's hopeless if it's advertised right," and associates agreed, stating that Babb "could take any piece of junk and sell it."[4]" Associates? What associates? This seems to be the only mention. It's a good line, but if you should be more specific, at least say "Fred Jones, an associate" or something.
    • That's as specific as the newspaper got. I had the same reaction, but there's not a name attached, but it still seems relevant.
    • Accepted.
  • "Karamoja proved to be less controversial than many of his other films and grossed poorly compared to his earlier productions, and would ultimately lose money in a similar way to his other less shocking fare.[1]" How about having a separate sentence or even section about the fact that his less shocking films lost money?
    • I think I've fixed this.
  • "Babb instead focused on one scene of the film with female nudity, used a photo of Leeds in a showgirl outfit, and renamed the film to She Shoulda Said No," Ah, that answers my question about "sensualized" above, but I think it underscores the point about not splitting up the writing about the films in the article. If you want to have one whole section about how the films were marketed, that would be fine, but if you are splitting them up by film production, then be consistent.
    • See, my thought process was more to worry about marketing and promotion and his style in one area, and the actual films in another. Mom and Dad is an obvious difference to this due to the importance of the film to the article and his style with the references, but the idea was to keep the marketing stuff in one place. Thoughts?
      • I understand now. The Later films is about the specific films, chronologically, the Film presenting is about his marketing style in general. Renaming the sections would help. You may want to consider putting them in the other order, given that the History section is also chronological, which would keep that flow. That would require renaming Later films to just Films, moving Mom and Dad into the top of the Films section, and a bit of more minor rewriting work. I'll accept it if you don't.
        • All of this is fixed, I finally figured out what you were getting at.
  • "According to Friedman, Babb's presentation of the film two nights a week at midnight made more money than any other films earned over a full run...The success of Mom and Dad was never repeated for Babb," These two consecutive sentences seem to contradict each other.
    • The intent was that Mom and Dad was an amazingly overwhelming success, and no others cam close. I think I've adjusted this, but a reread didn't strike me as all that contradictory.
      • If She Shoulda Said No earned more money than any other films, then it earned more than Mom and Dad, right?
        • It didn't. Is it really coming across this way? Never mind, I clarified the section you were referring to.
  • Father Bingo - what was the point, then? Did he make money from not making a film somehow?
    • The point is that he kept making reference to this film that was probably never going to happen. As I have an actual poster for the unmade film as well as three separate instances of the film being mentioned, it seemed worth noting. I still think it does.
      • No, it's notable, I'm just not sure how he profited from this "vaporware". Did he get publicity? If so, a few words should say so. John Waters's article implies he did it to get back at the clergy - if that was the main reason, again, a few words.
        • Okay. I'll expand a bit when I get to my resources. Expanded.
          • I'm still not sure how he benefited from this, though it is interesting nonetheless.
  • "promoting the use of women's clubs" - how is that? To join, to advertise through? If the latter, how?
    • Clarified.
      • Better, though "promoting ... to expand ... promotion" is a bit repetitive.
        • How did I miss that? Fixed.
  • "advocated old-style promotion techniques." Which were what? The semi-criminal things he was doing with the many Elliot Forbes?
    • I don't know how to fix this. A good chunk of this article involves some of those techniques, how do you suggest I reference them?
      • Not as much reference, as explicitly explain what you or he meant by "old-style". "advocated promotion techniques similar to those he used for his films, which he called 'old-style promotion techniques'". The alternative is "the use of 'old-style promotion techniques', such as sandwich boards, stentorian hawkers, children with posters, unlike the semi-legal methods he actually used to promote his films." Considering this seems to have been a somewhat slippery character, I wouldn't be surprised by either interpration.
        • Adjusted. Hard to do with the sources, went straight to the horse's mouth.
          • Good!
  • "One of these schemes was his "Astounding Swedish Ice Cream Diet," where Babb would eat ice cream three times a day and lose one hundred pounds in forty five days.[2]" Wait, I have to hear more about this. Was he so amazingly overweight that he could claim to want to lose 100 lbs? That would kill most slightly or even moderately overweight people. And the "he" troubles me - how does he make money by him losing weight? Surely he marketed the diet to other people who wanted to lose weight?
    • I hadn't mentioned his weight at all, so I've clarified this. Again, all I have is what I'm told on this one.
      • Hrr. Troublesome - I still can't understand the way this would make him money. Normally you market a diet plan by saying "look, this worked, I tested it, here's my evidence". It's normally not too effective to say "pay me money first for this plan, then I'll test it and see if it works."
        • Properly adjusted.
          • Good!
  • The drunk driving charge paragraph seems apropos of nothing (to use a cliche). It doesn't seem to have affected him much, wasn't particularly notable, and doesn't help the flow of the personal life section. Unless you want to add a series of incidents about him and alcohol, I'd dump it.
    • Amongst my clippings are close to a dozen stories on the matter. It was a fairly newsworthy event, which is why I included it. It's bizarrely negative compared to the rest of the article, so I wouldn't feel too badly about removing it, but I was going for comprehensive on this one.
      • How was it newsworthy? Was he considered a celebrity at the time, and the reasonably everyday thing became newsworthy due to his involvement? Like Mel Gibson's recent arrest? If so, then just add a sentence saying so, and it will be worth it. Something like "The tabloids of the day covered the celebrity drunk driving arrest extensively. [123][456]".
        • Done.
  • retire in 1977 at age 70[19]" Needs a period.
    • Fixed.
  • "leaving his wife, Mildred, a son, and five grandchildren.[7]" Err - first time son and grandchildren are mentioned. Did they live with them? If not, saying he left them probably isn't the best. I propose, instead, finding when the son was born, and writing that in the paragraph about his marriage. The grandchildren I'm not sure about - maybe a separate sentence? "At the time of his death, he had 5 grandchildren."
    • I have found nothing about his kid(s?) or grandkids. They're mentioned in the two obits I have, neither by name, and that's it. It seems almost crass not to mention it, would a separate sentence be worth it or should I just excise it entirely?
      • Grr. That's unfortunate. That he left descendants is certainly important to the biography. Leave it, I guess. Separate question, though - you say it was a "common law" marriage, which implies they never actually had a ceremony, then you call her his wife. So which was it? If it was common-law, but then legally recognized, I imagine that should be worth a couple of words.
        • I really like the story of how he met Mildred.
  • "Babb worked in various areas of the film industry, both in traditional fare and in the exploitation area." That seems like the exploitation area is just behind the fence and to the right of the big green building. How about "Babb worked in traditional films as well as in the exploitation genre."? And which of the following list are considered which? Also, how about writing something about traditional films elsewhere in the article as well? So far it only mentions the exploitation stuff.
    • Clarified better. Many of these films lack the proper information at this point to seciton them out that way, a future goal is to get a more complete filmography, but that's near impossible.
  • New one: "Babb would eventually sell the rights to Mom and Dad, as well as his stake in Modern Film Distributors. The properties were sold to" - how about combining these, so: "Babb would eventually sell the rights to Mom and Dad, as well as his stake in Modern Film Distributors, to"? Not a big deal if you don't like it.
    • No, much better. I adapted that and fixed it.
      • Unnecessary comma in the sentence: "Babb's two former partners with Modern Film,[2] would continued to showcase Mom and Dad around the United States."
  • New one: The header just calls him a film producer, but the filmography mentions he produced several important TV shows. Also, I personally would add the John Waters article line about "my idol" there, as another mark of notability, but that's taste I guess.
    • Fixed the headers, and as much as I want to add the Waters info, too, I can't make it fit in the prose. Maybe I can work it into his article...
  • One more new one: I notice in your references with external links, you make the name of the magazine the link. The example in WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Embedded Citations implies that the link should go around the title of the article. At least that's the way I've always been doing it. :-)
    • I like your way much better, and fixed them all.
  • New one: Move the ref from "The Idea Factory" after the punctuation.

Whew. There are probably other issues, but would you say this would give you a little to start with? :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you VERY much. Let me know what else you got. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • More than half of the issues have been dealt with, the rest are left, a few issues are expanded, and a few more have been added. Good job. Deal with these, and I'll strongly support. Well done. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I love what you've done. Thank you so much for the help, let me know what you think. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you've got them all, or close enough that the ones left are nitpicks. This is a very interesting article, completely covering the life and work of a notable character, who was a certain celebrity in his time, and left a legacy (much though we may wish he hadn't). It is backed by good sources, well cited, thorough, and well written. It has even spawned interesting, well written, useful cross-linked articles. Strong support. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Not to mention you've done more to improve my own writing abilities in the last three days than anyone has in the last 3 years, so thanks on a number of levels. I appreciate all the help. BTW, one of the times I laughed the most while reading A Youth in Babylon was the story of how he met his wife. It seems so completely appropriate. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• When I first came across this article as a Good Article candidate, I was immediately taken aback by its proficient style, form, and rhetoric. Simply an amazingly written article on a worthy subject hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 01:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Support, with a few quibbles.

• I wonder if "Film presentation techniques" shouldn't have sub-headlines. A lot is jammed in there.
  • I thought about it, but couldn't come up with a logical way to do it. If you have any ideas, by all means, I'll be glad to take 'em.
• There is some excess langauge. "Her review of Mom and Dad referred to the film as a "cheap, mislabeled morality play,"[19] causing Babb and Horn to discuss the film and strike up a conversation." The redundancy should be obvious there. There numberous examples like "based around the idea of selling...". I tried to eliminate some of this in copy-editing, but you might go back and look for others.
  • Heh, I don't know why I didn't notice that. I'll give it another quick one over.
    • Just a note, I'm pretty sure this is taken care of now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, great work taking an obscure subject and giving it full treatment. A very interesting read. Marskell 11:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks! --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I found this a very comprehensive, well written article about an esoteric member of the film industry. I know a lot about film, but had never heard of him and learned a lot. This, to me, seems what FAs should do: teach us about subjects and people we might not otherwise encounter. Jeffpw 21:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
• Looks okay but I have a few nitpics:

• The explanation of the travelling exploitation film is a bit jumbled, in my opinion. It explains it all eventually, but for the first 5-10 paragraphs it kind of leaves the uninformed reader wondering exactly what a travelling exploitation film is, mentioning it numerous times before actually explaining it... I dunno, does that seem a bit backwards? Maybe a basic definition should be given early in the article to make it more clear.

• I think I've dealt with this a little better.

• I may be missing something, but the article doesn't seem to sufficiently explain Babb's role in the whole "Mom and Dad" operation, and the other similar ones. He was running it, sending the presenters out, using them as salesmen for the films and books he was selling? How much presenting did he do personally? I'm not sure the article coherently explains this entirely.

• I've expanded on this a little more, good catch.

• (minor nitpic) Would a grocery (Krogers) really have been called a "supermarket" in the 1910s as the article says? According to the OED (the other OED...) the term did not appear in print until the 1930s. I realize the source might say supermarket, but simply saying "grocery" would be more accurate and less distracting to (at least this) reader.

• I had no idea, go figure. I'm with you, and I changed it.

• Does there really need to be an inline citation for every claim in the "works" section? It's very distracting visually and since these are almost all just from the IMDB page (directly or interectly) they don't seem like very controversial claims, if anyone wants to verify them it should be easy enough for them to do so without the inline cites.--W.marsh 19:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Too much better than not enough, but I fixed it a bit. It's less obtrusive now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• support per above. Interesting and well-written article on an obscure but fascinating person. --W.marsh 02:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I'm surprised to find obvious problems in the lead:
  • • I struggle with leads. No lie, it's the hardest part of anything for me to write.
  • What does "with root in the medicine show tradition" mean?
    • It means essentially what it says - his style of presentation had root in the medicine show tradition. I don't think the article will lose much if I take it out, but if you can explain the problem with more detail...
  • Is "presentation" of a film the right wording? He was a producer, not a projectionist at a cinema.
    • No, presentation is entirely the correct word. While he's listed as the producer, he's best known for how he presented the film, which is what's detailed throughout the article.
  • "Babb was involved in the production and marketing of a large number of films and television shows over his career, each being presented with his favorite motto in mind,..."—Again, "presented" is unclear, and "each being presented" is not, strictly, grammatical. Remove "over his career" as redundant.
    • As I understand leads, they are supposed to attempt to summarize the article. If the presentation stuff is unclear later in the article, please point that out for me.
  • "a large number of" = "many"?
    • Changed.
  • "was involved in", then "was involved with" a sentence later—inconsistent and repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  • "intended to titillate audiences rather than educate them, with the goal of ..."—Do the first two words and the last phrase mean the same thing?
    • Fixed.

The whole article needs a prose audit. Can you locate someone else from the edit history of a similar FA to look at it? Tony 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• The article has been given a fairly thorough audit from start to finish by a number of people. If you have further issues, I'm very interested in hearing them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I said the whole article needS (present, not past tense) a prose audit. Based on the problems in the lead, it will take a good copy-editor an hour or two. The number of people who've already tried to fix it is irrelevant.

So are you basing the whole article on the lead, or on the whole article? You can say it "needs" it, but it certainly can't be fixed if you can't tell me what you're pointing at.

Can you explain exactly what "presentation" and "present" mean when applied to a film producer. The Phrase Checker shows quite a different usage (akin to projectionist). The word is wrongly used in a section title, too. "new film presentation operation" is a mystery to me: what exactly does it mean? How do the readers work it out? Later, we have "noted his success with film exploitation,[6] a term that many in the business would embrace." Here, "exploitation" should be in quotes, since it's a non-standard usage.

Actually, exploitation is a standard usage for this type of film. Furthermore, the presentation aspect, as noted above, is detailed within the rest of the article. I do not understand your objection here.

"Its roots" would be idiomatic; what you have at present is not.

Suggestion?

Do we really need "sexual intercourse" linked? We presumably speak English; likewise for dictionary terms such as "pregnant".

I was asked to link them, I have no problems removing such links if you're strongly opposed to it.

"spawned a number of imitators that eventually flooded the market"—What, the imitators themselves flooded the market, or their films did so?

Fixed.

"Babb, following the success of Mom and Dad, renamed his company Hallmark Productions." Clumsy word order. (Start with "Following".) Why are no years provided in that paragraph?

Because there are no verifiable years to include. I've taken care of your suggestion regarding the word order, however.

It's certainly not up to FA standards in terms of the writing. Tony 13:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Then, again, please let me know what I can act upon to fix it. As it's been through numerous prose reviews and you're the only person with an objection at this point, I would like to overcome them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A professional standard of writing is required by the rules. Go to FAs on similar/related topics and research the edit histories to learn who was responsible for improving the prose, particularly during FAC. Ask one or more of these people to help; show them that you're familiar with their work. If they resists, suggest sections for them to do. Other copy-editors may be willing to help; do you have a list? I do, but I don't usually give out names. Tony 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and all available review I've had so far indicates it meets this standard. If you have issues with certain sections, let me know. If you know of someone who can do the review of the prose that you approve of, let me know. I'm willing to work, but I'm not getting much to work with. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I went through the first half yesterday when a bit rushed and distracted and made what I hope are a few improvements; I went through the second half later when desperately sleepy and made a few more (I hope I didn't screw anything up). I think there's more work to be done; for example, I found the past-habitual "would" pseudo-tense a little overused: nothing wrong with any instance of it, but somehow a bit tiring overall. What I always find is a good way to improve fairly good prose (and something I did not do yesterday) is to print out and go over the thing with a red pen -- but perhaps my editorial brain is unusual in being to some extent numbed by a computer screen. Hoary 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please take Hoary's very good advice, among your other strategies. Tony 06:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That had been done. I'm still more curious as to what your issues were (and perhaps continue to be) with it so they can be acted on. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My issue is (not was) that the prose is not of professional standard. I've provided examples, which you have, by and large, addressed. But they are just that: examples of problems throughout the article. This is not an easy matter to fix. In the next few days, I'll have another look, but I reviewers are under no obligation to fix the problems that they identify here; nor are we expected to go through the whole article identifying every single problem. Examples should be enough to persuade you to take steps to improve the overall standard of the writing, and if that is not done, to stand as evidence that the nomination should fail. Tony 14:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My issue is simply that we seem to disagree regarding the standard. I would like to see such problems fixed, and while you're under no obligation to fix or identify them, it's difficult to address them if you're unwilling to do so. That's my entire gripe about it, and I promise it's nothing personal toward you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm under an obligation to identify examples, if I want to exert pressure on the contributors to improve the writing (which I do), and on the review process to be particular about its standards. Would you do it differently if you had the same objectives as a reviewer? Tony 15:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were in your shoes at this point, I would have done a job identifying what I found to be objectionable in regards to the specific prose issues, especially since the nominator is pleading with you for some information given the objection. My issue with this is more the blanket characterization rather than your intent, which is entirely noble. If I don't know what you're talking about, there's no way I can fix it whether I find an approving copyeditor or not. I don't even know if Hoary's fixes, for example, will meet your standard. That's all I'm getting at here - if I had major prose issues with an article that's otherwise close to FA standard and has a lot of support, I'd take that extra step and provide more detail, and in retrospect it was wrong of me to expect that of you. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Above I mischaracterized the use of would, in the article it's often a backshifted future (and correctly so). I went through the article again today (though I didn't follow my own advice and print it out); note the occasional question embedded (conspicuously) in an SGML comment within the article. -- Hoary 13:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll address those with you at the talk page, I think. I have some questions on a few of them, but I'm getting slammed currently. I appreciate your detailed input, however. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hoary, thanks for pointing out the technical terms for this phenomenon, which I've been groping for for a while now. My feeling is that a bit of it is OK, but it can become very predictable if used repeatedly. It can give a text a journalistic feel, and in most cases is plainer and simpler in past tense. Sometimes, this "back-shifted" future construction is accompanied with vauge time phrases, such as "she would go on to write three more plays in this style". Tony 15:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tony, have the changes addressed the issues? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose fair use images lack fair use rationales. --Peta 03:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Guess I can't necessarily trust other reviews. I believe this is fixed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• More problems, taken at random from a section:
  • Why isn't "exploitation film" linked?
    • It is, in the lead. OK, sorry.
  • Clumsy and barely grammatical sentence: "Following a pre-planned lecture and bookselling attempt, the film resumes with the girl learning that she is pregnant." Well, how does "pre-planned" differ from "planned"? "Atttempt" is kind of odd—what is a bookselling attempt? Is this attempt depicted in the film, which then "resumes"? "The girl learning" is, strictly speaking, ungrammatical. Rather than traditional solution ("The girl's learning that ...", which is outmoded nowadays), try recasting the clause. So it's a whole lot of little problems.
    • What's "barely grammatical" about it? I've made a slight adjustment because I don't like how it sounds anymore, but I'm not seeing the problem.
  • Confusing: "The film typically ended with the birth of the girl's child, sometimes stillborn and other times put up for adoption." and "referencing the pregnancy by noting that the girl's clothes no longer fit". The birth was "sometimes stillborn" is OK, but the birth was "other times put up for adoption"? Muddled.
    • Why is it confusing?
      • I think Tony has here sleepily misread something. It's not the birth that's stillborn or put up for adoption; it's the child. (sez Hoary) But my point is that it reads as the birth, not the child .... Tony 16:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)\
        • I'm sorry, I feel like an idiot, but I don't see it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The $62,000 production was presented via over 300 prints"—via over?
    • We know that over 300 prints were created to be distributed. How should this be worded otherwise? "more than 300 prints of the $62,000 production were distributed". "Presented" was a problem.

Not lookin' good. Tony 11:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Presented, as we've said before, is the proper term here. This is one thing that makes no sense changing because of its overall accuracy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, we're getting somewhere. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) No, I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm providing evidence that the whole text requires careful copy-editing, not just the issues that I raise. I'm not going through the whole thing like this. It's your job to collaborate with WPians who can do this. Tony 13:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Sheesh, what a -- oh, right, NPA. Well, Tony, er, inspired me to go through the article again, though still not doing what I ought to do, which is to print it out. I hope and believe that it is starting to get somewhere. -- Hoary 15:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you won't be the first person to print it out. Thank you for your continued help in dealing with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Michael Hall

Self-nomination. Before I started, the article looked like this. I re-wrote the entire article from scratch. I requested a Wikiproject Biography peer review. The article got an A-Class rating, but I still wanted to go for GA before FAC to get more criticism. The GA reviewer had no issues and thought it was pushing FA status. I requested another peer review, and I was once again told to go FAC. I believe it is ready. If you have any addressable concerns, I will promptly deal with them. If you have no objections, please support. Thanks. Nat91 11:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - great article. I can't find any problems with it. Everything seems to be cited. It's not too cluttered either, and looks great. --andrewI20^Talk 06:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think that all the concerns raised in the Biography peer-reviews (here) have been addressed.--Yannismarou 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this is quite a good article. The quotes from the subject are used nicely. However, some phrases seem a bit wordy. For instance, from the top:
  • "The films that shaped his early career were those with..." Why not "His early career was shaped by films with..."? Does the comma belong in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the intro?
    • Nice suggestion. I've fixed it. And no, the comma was not supposed to be there - my mistake. Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "...was the one that put him back into the spotlight." How about just "...put him back into the spotlight"?
    • Good point, it was redundant. Also fixed. Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "...due to there being another actor in the SAG named MH." How about "...because the SAG had another actor going by the name MH"?
    • Sounds better. I've changed the sentence. Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Also "Breakfast club" and "Weird Science" appear to be contrasted, but both are called a "moderate success at the box office". That might need some clarification. Gimmetrow 23:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, Weird Science was the "moderate success at the box office." I deleted the first part of that sentence (Compared to The Breakfast Club...) to avoid confusions. Thanks! Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional Support: Good job well done. However, there are a few more redlinks in the filmography section that you might have to take care of, as well as a stubby third paragraph in the intro. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The red links are fixed and another sentence was added to the third paragraph in the intro. Thanks! Nat91 03:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • After giving it some thought, I merged the second and third paragraph of the lead, since the third was too short. Nat91 05:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object Well-cited and comprehensive. However, images are fair use (although that can't really be avoided in this article) and prose needs work to meet 1a. Various paragraphs are stubby and the prose is choppy, full of passive voice, and alternates between present and past tense at random. The article relies way too much on quotations, especially those that add little content value to the article and those that could easily be summarized. The latter part of the article reads more like a feature story in a magazine rather than an entry in an encyclopedia. Specific comments:

Agreed, fair use images can't really be avoided in this article. In my opinion, alternates between present and past tense are sometimes necessary. I can't talk about the present in past tense. As for the latter part, I could not include that information inside the other parts that treat his acting career. I have to say, several FAs on actors rely on quotations (see Katie Holmes, etc) Lauds and criticism have to be included. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well I'm a fan of quotations if they add flavor to the text. But quotations like "I've been a working actor since age 8." could easily be summarized into prose no? See my recent edits in that section (Personal). Gzkn 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw. Even if I don't get your support, thank you very much for the useful edits. I'm not a native English speaker, it's hard for me to copy-edit. The article had 2 peer-reviews. Nat91 07:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• • However, his performance as “the grandest geek of all” Microsoft’s Bill Gates in the Emmy-nominated 1999 film Pirates of Silicon Valley put him back into the spotlight. Needs source for "grandest geek of all"; otherwise, delete it. Also, "put him back into the spotlight" suggests he fell out of the limelight, which the previous sentences make no allusion to.
    • I've reworded the sentence. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • He is now best known for his starring role in the popular USA Network series The Dead Zone, which has aired since 2002. Avoid unqualified usage of the word "best". He's best known to me as Brian in the Breakfast Club. :) He is now starring in... is just fine.
    • Fixed. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Starting his career at a very young age, Hall states, "I've been a working actor since age 8..." There are better ways to transition into a quotation...
    • Any suggestions would be welcome. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Changed. Gzkn 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • and novel with audio Novels with audio?
    • Novels with audio (forgot the plural, now fixed). Don't ask me, ask Hall. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Personal section in general is choppy and full of stubby paragraphs.
    • The information is different in each paragraph, I don't think it'd look good in one big paragraph. Again, if those paragraphs are stubby, please check FAs Julia Stiles, Katie Holmes, Uma Thurman. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "I didn't play him with 100 pens sticking out of his pocket," he said in his defense. No one's making an accusation, so in his defense should be deleted..
    • Good point. It was deleted. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • He was cast as Brian Johnson, the brain,... Might want to source and put in quotation marks "the brain", as people unfamiliar with the movie will have little clue about that nickname.
    • Fixed. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Working so well under the direction of John Hughes, there were those who assumed that Hughes was treating the young actor as an alter ego, reliving his own misfit high school years. Dangling modifier alert! Also, who assumed? Furthermore, this does not transition into the next sentences at all. Finally, this paragraph is stubby and really only filled with quotations.
    • Well, people assumed. The paragraph is more about the Hall/Hughes working relationship. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry should have clarified. I meant more along the lines of "there were those" = "some people" which is fairly "weasily". :)
  • Hall plays a high school teacher who gets into a car accident and falls into a coma for six years. Blech, avoid using forms of "to get".
    • I've reworded the sentence. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Having begun drinking in his early teens,[2] by the time he was 18, it became a serious issue.[2] Dangling modifier alert! Also, since it's the same source, won't the one [2] at the end of the sentence be enough?
    • Yes, you're right. I didn't notice that before. Fixed. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Even though Hall is being recognized as much for The Dead Zone as for the work he did in the 1980s, it is impossible to ignore his stint as an 80s teen icon. Avoid phrases like "it is impossible".
    • I've also reworded that sentence. Nat91 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gzkn 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well it looks like consensus is support. I still think the quotations are overused, but I guess that's just personal preference. I would like to see the stubby paragraphs beefed up. And the prose still isn't "brilliant" enough for me :). Gzkn 07:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at home right now, but I will make some changes and reply to your comments soon. Nat91 16:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Changes were made and my reply is above. Nat91 05:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support looks good Mad Jack 22:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object—Not what I'd call a "professional" writing job (as required). Things picked out at random:
  • "He later went on to appear in the Lincoln Center Festival's production of St. Joan of the Microphone, and a play with Woody Allen." Remove "later"; inserting "in" before "a play" would be kinder to the readers.
    • Done. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "After a year and a half, they returned to the East, eventually moving to New York City, where Hall grew up." "Eventually", IMO, is not an encyclopedic word. Fuzzy. Can you be more precise about years? If not in a WP article, where?
    • My sources say he moved to the West Coast when he was 3, and returned to the East after a year and a half. Yes, I can do the math and say he moved to NY circa 1973 (when he was 5 years old), but it wouldn't be a fact according to the references. I don't see what's wrong with that sentence. Any suggestions would be welcome. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "Working so well under the direction of John Hughes, there were those who assumed that Hughes was treating the young actor as an alter ego, reliving his own misfit high school years.[18] Hughes called Hall a natural.[3]" Is this what they call a dangling clause? Unsure, but it's ambiguous as to who was working so well: Hall or those who assumed ...? Audit sentence lengths, please; the second one here is a real stub.
    • Since that paragraph was giving me so many problems, I deleted it. I reworded a couple of sentences and added them at the end of the previous paragraph. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent numerals and spellings out of single-digit numbers: it's simple—single digit spell out, double digits and above, use numerals (unless good reason to do otherwise).
    • Fixed. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Why on earth are the simple years blue? Please delink these nuisance colourings. Tony 14:39, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, the simple years are not in blue. All the years linked are those that go to, for example, 1985 in film or 2002 in television. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Something else I'd like to add. I have realised I will never be able to write a "professional writing job," simply because my first language is not English. Even though the University of Cambridge qualified my writing as "outstanding" for a non-native English speaker, it will never be good enough for some native speakers, especially for a professional editor like you. I feel I have already given everything to this article, and even though the consensus is support, I'm pretty sure it's not going to pass considering the 2 objects. It looks like I'll always have problems with the "brilliant prose." This is probably the first and last FAC I'll nominate. I think that some FAs on actors like Julia Stiles and Katie Holmes seriously need a review then. Nat91 20:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, don't be too glum. Your English is certainly far better than any of my other languages. :) If you'd like, I can take a look at any future articles and comb through it to get it up to native-English level if you feel it's not there yet. Just let me know on my talk page. Unfortunately, I'll be a bit busy the next few days mediating a case, however, so I won't be able to run through Anthony Michael Hall again for a little while. Gzkn 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Which is why it's so important to forge strong collaborations on WP. That's the way we all improve our skills—not just our writing skills, but the others that are necessary to create good articles. Please don't be disheartened. Tony 07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Randall Flagg

Self-Nomination Was rejected before due to improper image licensings, missing citations and some speculative information. That has now been fixed. The article is a lengthy analysis on Randall Flagg, his roles in all the books he has appeared in, the miniseries appearence, and the poem on which he was based.--CyberGhostface 02:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

• After a section on "Names, appearance and role" you have the following sentence in "Origins": Flagg had many aliases, almost all of which have the initials "R.F."–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Inconsistent tense in Flagg plans to attack and destroy the other emerging civilization in Boulder, Colorado, leaving his civilization as the only survivors. His plans were foiled when the hand of God is turned upon him causing a nuclear bomb to detonate in front of his assembled followers.–Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed.--CyberGhostface 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I believe there is still some speculative unreferenced material, such as Prior to The Dark Tower, some fans suggested that the original edition of The Stand and the expanded edition are actually parallel dimension variations of the same story. –Outriggr § 05:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove the speculative bit.--CyberGhostface 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Minor object: Again, some issues with the Fair Use images. I still believe that the article uses too many; each should be used to illustrate a specific facet of the subject, but at the moment a few seem to be just decorative. The lead image is good, and Jamey Sheridan definitely belongs, but what does Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg show that the others dont? Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg doesn't show the character very clearly (though it might still be worth keeping), and I've still no idea which of the two characters in Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg is supposed to be Flagg and which is King Peter. Aside from the images, the "Aliases" section in its present form seems more of an extended piece of trivia than anything, especially with most of his important pseudonyms already mentioned within the text of the article. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Walterodimrevisedgunslinger.jpg represents Walter o'Dim, Flagg's only other significant alias (as it says in the beginning, Walter is Flagg's 'real' name and how he considers himself), as he appears in the Dark Tower series. Image:Randallflaggandmordreddt7.jpg shows his death scene. And I'll try to make Image:EyesoftheDragonFlagg.jpg more clearer.--CyberGhostface 22:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Still not sure about the images (thanks for clearing up the Flagg/Peter ambiguity), but not enough so to oppose on those grounds. Could you give some justification for the Aliases list though? I really don't see what it adds to the article beyond a trivia point, which are generally discouraged in FACs. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 23:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The aliases are now gone.--CyberGhostface 19:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always liked this article.

It seems to me that if the concerns over image licensing are resolved then it would make a good candidate for featured article status. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on this entry seems to have kind of died off, with no supports or objects. Anyone at all have an opinion on the article? GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 20:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Any admins we can ask for opinions?--CyberGhostface 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which users are currently paying attention to FAC, though generally if an entry doesn't receive enough feedback or no decision has been reached, Raul654 will repost it to garner some more responses. Patience is the key thing :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Weak support. The article is listed as having invalid ISBNs. Also may be this and this are worth of mention as a kind of cultural influence? --Brand спойт 10:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Which ISBNs are innaccurate? I would disagree with the cultural influences bit: I usually prefer not to add trivia bits like that as it comes off irrevelant to the character and the article as a whole.--CyberGhostface 17:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Not happy with the writing (1a). Let's take the lead, which suggests that the whole article needs a serious copy-edit.

Randall Flagg is a fictional character created by Stephen King. He is considered by many to be King's "supervillain", a recurring archetype of personified evil who appears in a number of King's writings. Flagg made his first appearance in the 1978 novel The Stand as the central antagonist. This was followed by central roles in The Eyes of the Dragon and The Dark Tower.

Randall Flagg is generally described as having an everyday appearance, dressed in casual American-style clothing. His goals typically center around spreading destruction and causing conflict, and he often prefers to work behind the scenes. He goes by many names, from the "Dark Man" to the "Walkin' Dude." He is also a magician, is said to come from the "outside", and has lived for at least 15 centuries, but cannot remember every life he has had.

• • "He is considered"—Coming straight after Stephen King, we momentarily wonder whether that is the referent for "He". Not kind to the reader.
  • "Writings"—why not say "books and plays", if that's the case (no idea, but precision here would be easy).
  • "Central" twice in seven words. "Roles" makes them sound like films.
  • Described by whom? Reword to avoid the need for references.
  • Is it the appearance that is dressed? The grammar of that sentence is not satisfactory.

Tony 14:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the problems that you mentioned. If you find anymore, tell me, and I'll rewrite them as well.--CyberGhostface 17:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point. I've provided examples of why the whole article needs serious attention, not just the fixing of a few specified glitches. Here are more, taken at random.

• • "Still, even in this case it is possible that"—Not really encyclopedic language.
  • "hints are made to this when a connection between"—hints to?
  • "The two characters are even further connected by"—awkward/unidiomatic/unclear.
  • Winding snake that needs chopping up: "Because Flagg here acts and looks slightly different from how he did in The Stand, (most likely because The Eyes of the Dragon features a medieval setting while The Stand took place in modern times) some have argued that the two are different versions of him from two different dimensions, given the presence of parallel dimensions in the Dark Tower series." And here's another rambler, soon after: "Due to the fact that the story takes place in the same world as The Dark Tower, it could be assumed that, if he did in fact die, then he had reincarnated once again in this same world, much like in the case of the extended version of The Stand."
  • Huge, two-paragraph quote starting ""He had, in fact, come to Delain ...". I think this is a problem.

Really, I think that this is not FA prose. Tony 12:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think its fair that you are listing your complaints without saying what needs to be improved, especially when the majority of it is just minor grammatical errors. The others here managed to list their doubts with the article, which I later fixed appropiately.--CyberGhostface 18:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of erotic depictions

In the two months since its creation, this article has made amazing progress, is spell-checked, copyedited, decked out with nice illustrations and links to commons, and very thoroughly referenced. As for comprehensiveness, you be the judges (I'm no expert on the subject), but this is without a doubt an outstanding Wikipedia achievement that deserves recognition. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Samsara: Who among us can claim to be expert in this subject, I wonder? :) but this article is a real tour de force. Covers all the significant periods of history, is not western centric, is meticulously referenced (to the point of needing a scroll box for all the references!) and has a nice collection of very striking and apropos images. Would be a great featured article. And to think it started as a split off from a much maligned article. Support ++Lar: t/c 19:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - detailed, interesting, attractive read. Considerably well referenced. I see no reason why this shouldn't be promoted. Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 19:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  Note to self: Reread your comments before posting. By "attractive", I meant, there's a good balance of images and text, at that the paragraphs seem the right lengths. :). —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, per Lar and Celestianpower, well referenced, well written, good FAC. -- Banes 09:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Object.
  • Lead section should be a summary of the article. Especially the first paragraph is currently too specifically focused on definitional issues, which rather should either be cut, or discussed in a separate section and only briefly referenced in the lead.
    • • Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "The ancient Greeks often painted sexual scenes on their ceramics, many of them famous for being some of the earliest depictions of same-sex relations and pederasty." This is the only information about ancient Greek erotic art. Surely we can do better than that?
    • • Don't see what else needs to be said, since we already have Art in Ancient Greece. The Greeks didn't separate art into erotic and not erotic, it was all the same to them. The notable thing for a summary of history is that they created some of the first recorded scenes of pederasty, which is pointed out. Other than that the Greeks were just doing their normal art with scenes from everyday life. pschemp | talk 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, you're already saying more than we are saying in the article. In addition: What kind of erotic themes do we know from what time periods? What objects? Which regions? Did phalluses play a role like in Roman times? The single sentence remark simply seems out of place to me at present.--Eloquence* 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • • Section expanded. pschemp | talk 03:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The text about the Romans is poorly referenced. I would specifically like references for the following:
    • "On one hand, in the 'Villa of the Mysteries', there is a ritual flagellation scene that is clearly associated with a religious cult." I have never interpreted it as a flaggellation scene, but this is of course just my opinion. I know that some have, and I wouldn't be surprised if other sources disagree. We should be specific according to whom it depicts a flaggellation scene.
    • "Sex acts that were considered taboo (such as those that defiled the purity of the mouth) were depicted in baths for comic effect only." Especially the "for comic effect" needs to be sourced.
      • • Again, all of that is from the reference cited at the end of that paragraph. I don't see the point of putting the same ref number on every sentence of a paragraph when citing the source that covers it can by done more efficiently and with less interruption at the end of the paragraph. It is assumed that everything above that reference comes from that reference. pschemp | talk 17:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In image caption: "Large phalluses were considered undesirable and comical in ancient Rome." Again the "comical" claim. Where is that from?
      • • I put the cite in after the caption. pschemp | talk 17:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • For a claim as significant as this, I would really prefer a more scholarly reference than a documentary DVD. I'm really skeptical about this claim -- if we can't have a better source for it, I'd prefer it to be removed.--Eloquence* 23:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Not sure why you think this is a "significant" claim, as it is common in current literature about Roman sexuality. The documentary was made by interviewing experts in each field, in this case John Clarke who also discussed this same view extensively in his book Roman Sex along with the concept of taboo images being depicted for comic reasons in baths. Nor is John Clarke the only person who thinks that, as is mentioned here. Finally, in case you still don't believe me, it is also mentioned in a review of the book here. I understand there is prejudice against anything but books as sources, but the DVD uses the scholars themselves. Just make you happy, I'll add the book reference too, though I still don't think its needed. pschemp | talk 01:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
              • Can you slow down a bit with the strike-through? Thanks. Now, regarding the reference, I do not find the claim in the Times Online article by Philip Howard you are citing above. In fact, that article is stating precisely that oversized penises had positive connotations, and were considered erotic or comical, not, as the image caption currently states, "comical and undesirable". Again, in the article itself it also says "for comic effect only", which contradicts the Times Online article. Does Clarke claim so? If that is Clarke's view, it should be stated as such. Right now the article categorically claims that Romans considered large penises and oral sex undesirable and "for comic effect only", which I find very hard to believe and which very much sounds like a personal interpretation by a single scholar to me. Alternatively, just remove the claim that it was considered undesirable and only comical. Why is it significant? Because we're making a categorical claim about the sexual preferences of an entire culture.--Eloquence* 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                • • No I can't stop with the strikethough, I need it to keep my place as I work on addressing these things. The sentence, in full now reads, "Sex acts that were considered taboo (such as those that defiled the purity of the mouth) were depicted in baths for comic effect." Note this is *only* referring to those certain kind of depictions. And yes, Clarke claims this. I do not however state anywhere that large penises and taboo acts were *always* depicted for comic effect, but they often were. As for the large penis being undersireable and often being depicted for comic effect , all the sources back that up. Romans didn't want large penises. That was a sign of barbarism. I think you are reading that article incorrectly. It clearly states "Uncivilised brutes had large membra." The oversized depictions were thus often done for comic effect or the titilation of the weaker minded female, not to glorify. In the positive aspect I have mentioned that "Large Phalluses were often used near entryways, for the phallus was seen as a good luck charm, and the carvings were common in every home." which shows I'm not saying they are *only* undersirable. I have also changed the caption to read "Large phalluses were considered undesirable for men to posess and often depicted for comic effect in ancient Rome." This in no way insinuates that was the *only* reason they were painted, but the fact that Roman men wanted small penises is referenced all over the place. It is not a revolutionary idea. 02:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • Again, from another source, (This talking about the Greeks, but this is where the Romans got their views),"Long, thick penises were considered--at least in the highbrow view-- grotesque, comic, or both and were usually found on fertility gods, half-animal critters such as satyrs, ugly old men, and barbarians." the Romans still celebrated that which they found grotesque or comic, but celebrating it doesn't make it stop being grotesque or comic. [15] Also, "Clarke is an acknowledged expert on Roman erotic art" [16].pschemp | talk 02:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
                    • And another source "Roman texts and images of Priapus, who is closely associated with sexuality and human fertility, are typically prurient and often contain elements of humor." Hemingway, Seán (Winter 2004). "Roman Erotic Art". Sculpture Review 53 (4): 10-15. Retrieved on 2006-10-24.pschemp | talk 03:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "It was not until the invention of the printing press that sexually explicit images entered into any type of mass circulation. Before that time, erotic images, being hand made and expensive, were limited to upper class males who deliberately kept them away from the working class, fearing the effect such things would have on the animal lust of the uneducated." This is far too general a statement. For which cultures, which eras is that true?
    • • I added the words, "in Western Culture." As for the era, its already dated by the invention of the printing press. pschemp | talk 18:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "both in your pussy and your behind ..." Source for this translation please. Only Google hit is Wikipedia.
    • • Source is at the end of the paragraph pschemp | talk 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Minor: text under "Photography" is very densely written; paragraphs should be shorter and should be copyedited for general flow.
  • The last paragraph of "Moving pictures" seems very US-centric. Were the cited movies really pioneering in this regard internationally? If not, this should always be stated explicitly.
    • • Clarified and added another ref. pschemp | talk 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Video and digital depictions" could be expanded to about twice its current size, especially if you want to cover VHS porn/erotica and Internet pornography in the same section. It also needs copyediting and better referencing.
    • • Every statement in there is covered by the references cited at the end of the paragraph. Also, note there is an entire separate article for Internet pornography and this is pointed out at the top of the section. No need to cover the same information twice. The point here is a comprehensive summary of the topic, not a giant discussion of every detail, *especially* since an article specific to the internet already exists. pschemp | talk 17:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, some people feel that it's best to have a squiggle at the end of every sentence, just in case people add stuff that is then not supported by the reference at the end of the paragraph. People are somewhat less likely to break up sentences in their editing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
          • • It would seriously have the same ref at the end of ten sentences in a row, which I think looks terrible, but if that's what people want I'll do it. I *could* cite one of the listed refs for every single sentence, as I know where every fact comes from. Somehow that seems a bit like overkill but I suspect there's a happy medium to be found. pschemp | talk 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
              • So long as you appreciate the problem and someone will be around to question unsourced material that gets added, it should be fine with references at the end of each paragraph. Certainly makes it more readable. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
                • • I do. This is a but a symptom of a larger Wikipedia problem. Should we sacrifice readability for the exactness of referencing every sentence? I don't know. Stable Versions would help a lot here.pschemp | talk 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• This is all for now. Mind you, even if all these were addressed, it could still only scratch the surface, but that is to be expected with such a topic--making it featured does not preclude us from improving it further. I think the article is on the road to getting there.--Eloquence* 15:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Some good comments there. As for scratching the surface, let's remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a monograph about the history of erotic depictions. Our purpose is to scratch the surface in a comprehensive way. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, ideally I would like to end up with very detailed sub-articles on each topic -- Wikipedia is not paper -- but as I said, the fact that you can always add a lot more information to a topic like this should not stand in the way of FA status.--Eloquence* 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

---

*Object for now, for the following reasons: (changed to weak support, see below)

• • Intro, though quite interesting, does not summarize the article, see WP:LEAD. Needs to be an overview of the article. Right now it's just a summary of the introduction of the word "pornography" to the lexicon.
    • • Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Many film directors resisted this shift at first because of the different quality of image it produced, but it moved so quickly and totally to the new format that continuing to shoot on film was no longer an option. - It's unclear to me what the bolded word "it" means. The industry presumably, but if you just substitute that word in, it kind of begs the question "if many directors resisted, then how did the industry move so fast?" Needs clarification badly.
    • • Reworded. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Unencumbered by Christian dogma" This seems like a POV jab that adds nothing to the article. Does the source actually back this up? (it's offline so I can't check) Even still I don't think it adds anything to include that phrase.
    • • Phrase removed. pschemp | talk 03:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "The next advance, stereoscopy, was invented in 1838" Eh? How is this the next advance, when the article just told us that the older method was released "In 1839". This needs to be reconciled.
    • • Ok, this is because daguerreotypes were not the first photographic process invented, but the first practical process invented and that has documented use for erotic images. (the first photograph was taken in 1826) so stereoscopy came after that. I removed the phrase, "the next advance" so that should make the timeline less confusing. pschemp | talk 01:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Some think that the pictures satisfied the medieval cravings for both erotic pictures and religion in one book" Weasel words ("Some think") should be elimated if feasable. I don't have access to the source again, so I can't figure out who the "some" that think this are.
    • • Some is referring to medieval scholars who, like most academics are not in 100% agreement with each other about the motives of the monks who drew the pictures and since we cannot ask the monks, their motives will never be known for sure. The next sentence, starting with "others" gives the alternative veiw. I clarified who the some were and hopefully made it more clear that there are two accepted opinions about this. pschemp | talk 04:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I cannot figure out what the image labelled "Digitally altered photograph" is supposed to be a picture of, or what it's supposed to add to the article.
    • • I explained below its a woman wearing knickers, a garter belt and stockings. Its an example of how an erotic image can be altered from a plain photograph with digital technology. At any rate, I changed it to one that is more obvious. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In general, the article has a curious fixation with the economic classes, the "working class" and so on is mentioned or alluded to several times, sometimes it's relevent sometimes there seems to be little meaningful reason to mention it. This is not something I expected to be acted on, just a general comment.
  • The article starts off with a broad global view, but from "The beginnings of mass circulation" section to the end of the article nothing but European and then American pornography seems to be mentioned whatsoever. --W.marsh 00:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • • The reason for that is until the latter part of the 20th century many of the non-European cultures just carried on their traditional forms of erotic art because they didn't have a concept of pornography until the Western morals were imported along with things like photographs and Playboy. We have a separate article Pornography in Japan (totally unreferenced) for that country, but little information from usable sources exists as to these kinds of depictions in other cultures. Sadly, a big reason for this is the imposition of western values during Colonial times when the empires also introduced western forms of pornography. If there were sources for the history of erotic depictions in other cultures different from the traditional depictions, I'd gladly put them in, but they just don't seem to exist. In the case of Japan, the ancient art of Shunga is apparently an acceptable topic but what came after that doesn't seem to be. pschemp | talk 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Comment. "Erotic depictions of sexual acts are as old as civilization. Erotic depictions include paintings, sculptures, photographs, music and writings that show scenes of a sexual nature". I'd rather change the sequence of sentences. BTW consider rewording because "old as civilization" sounds like a fairy tale beggining :) Generally probably it would be better to focus deeper on softcore rather than on hardcore issues. --Brand спойт 01:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There is no distinction between softcore and hardcore in erotic images. Making one would be arbitrary and OR on my part. To be fair, I have to treat all images of a sexual nature the same. I'm going to totally rewordk the lead also, so I'll wait on your suggestions and they may become irrlevent. pschemp | talk 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment what on earth is the digital picture at the bottom supposed to be? drumguy8800 C T 01:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Its a woman's torso clad in knickers, a garter belt and stockings. It helps if you look at the full size. It has obviously been digitally altered, but that's the point. We can do that now. Anyway, I changed it to one that is more obvious. pschemp | talk 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

Note - If you are going to object because of the lead section, please consider waiting until I have a chance to rework it into a summary. I need to sleep sometime. Also, please don't be offended if I strikethrough your comment. I'm doing it so I know what I've addressed and what I haven't, not to imply that your comment isn't appreciated. If you still have an issue, just post underneath. Thanks. pschemp | talk 04:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't mind the striking through at all, and it looks like most of my complaints have been addressed, I'm not sure about the image thing yet, I'll reply on that later. The intro thing is not trivial though, and the FAC should be open for a while so it's not like it's a total rush. --W.marsh 18:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Object for a couple reasons, though it is an excellent article
  • The lead needs work, which I know you're working on.
    • • Rewritten. pschemp | talk 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Too focused on ancient Greece and Rome in the "Early depictions" section. This is the only really major objection. If Japan, China, India and Persia "produced copious quantities of art celebrating the human faculty of love", there needs to be more coverage here. Japan and China get a few sentences each, and India and Persia are not covered at all.
    • • Sadly, I can cite more sources saying the Persia's erotic art has been ignored by scholars than I can sources that actually look at it. The problem here is that scholars were previously reluctant to look at the erotic art of these cultures, making reliable, scholarly sources lacking. (Most of the available texts are just picture books for India, China and Japan, and in the case of Persia, even pictures are rare.) The Greeks and Romans were analyzed in more detail because western culture saw itself as the heir of their learning. The bias here is not mine but that of the available sources. That being said, I do have a bit more information for these cultures and will add what I do have. pschemp | talk 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • in the sixteenth century an attempt to print erotic material caused a scandal when Italians Pietro Aretino and Marcantonio Raimondi produced the I Modi in 1524, an illustrated book of 16 "postures" or sexual positions. Raimondi had actually published the I Modi once before, and was subsequently imprisoned by the Pope Clement VII and all copies of the illustrations were destroyed-first letter not capitalized, and it's confusing-was Raimondi imprisoned for the first publishing or the second? If the first, how did he publish the second?
    • • (Also rewritten) Might I suggest you read the entire paragraph as it says after that, "He (Aretrino) then composed 16 explicit sonnets ("both in your pussy and your behind, my cock will make me happy, and you happy and blissful") to go with the paintings and secured Raimondi's release from prison. The I Modi was then published the second time with the poems and the pictures making this the first time erotic text and images were combined, though the papacy once more seized all the copies it could find. Raimondi escaped prison that time..." No one else has found this confusing. pschemp | talk 01:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Please do not strike out the comments of others. Thank you for explaining it. The beginning of this paragraph is bad because it jumps around chronologically, and requires reading the last part of the paragraph to make sense of the first part. 02:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Its been rewritten to make this clearer. As for the strikethough, I commented above that I need to do it to make sure I've addressed everyone's issues. If that bothers you I'm sorry, but its an accepted practice here and one I find helpful so I don't forget what I've done and not done. As I said before, its not personal and doesn't mean that comments aren't appreciated. pschemp | talk 20:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
            • It isn't not accepted here, it's profoundly rude. If you want to make a list to strikethrough, do it on a user subpage or the article talk page. My objection still stands on the basis that not enough coverage is given to non-Western topics. There's a lot of material that can still be included - our own article on pornography in Japan provides substantial detail, as an example. Tuf-Kat 04:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
              • • I'm sorry you disagree with the strikethrough thing. We'll just have to disagree on it. I said my intentions were not rude, and if you continue to assume that they are, I can't stop you. Others here have not objected, and like I said, it is done all the time on FAC nominations. If you have such a serious issue with it, you should be complaining to all the editors who do this, not just me, and get the practice changed or discussed. In the mean time, I'm going to keep doing it because I've already explained my reasons for it, and stated them multiple times. As for Pornography in Japan, which I discussed above, it is, sadly, completely unreferenced, this proving my point that refs for that kind of information are few and far between. Surely you aren't suggesting that I add material that is unsourced and unverifyable? I've also stated an intention to expland the section as much as can be done with scholarly refs, but haven't done so yet, so of course your objection still stands. pschemp | talk 05:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "See also" seems bloated. All of those either are or should be incorporated into the article text, and then removed from the see also.
    • • Incorporated in details templates or text. pschemp | talk 04:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Tuf-Kat 00:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• Comment. Brief note to those who had qualms about the lead: it has been completely rewritten as far as I can tell. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

---

• support -- Wow. Amazing how much (and how good) one can write about that topic, it's a really fantastic article. I've learned much about other cultures concerning their behavior of erotic depiction. And I easily understood the English, which is a sign (for me) that it's been written very well. Additionally, the illustrations are very helpful. Thank you, pschemp, for this article. --Thogo (Talk) 15:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• weak support per intro being written and my problems being addressed. However the intro is still a bit short... just needs a little touching up. --W.marsh 03:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good job, pschemp! ~Kylu (u|t) 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent topic to inject some variety into the lagging featured articles space - covering an almost taboo topic in a magnificently professional manner. Featuring this article would go a long way towards reinforcing what a proper Wikipedia article should look like - particularly for the hundreds of vandals daily that wish to create a brand new Wikipedia article containing the single word "fuck." It may make some noise outside of Wikipedia, but any serious review of the article will find the actual article is simply a very well written encyclopedic article. Truly, something that is of broad interest, yet not something one would research on any given day. All-in-all, it is surprisingly informative. I had no idea what the British idiom "what the butler saw" meant, despite having heard it in songs many times over the last couple decades. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 06:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

Self-Nomination

• support. great article. --71.194.71.220 06:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
• Hello I am Seadog.M.S and I've nominated this article for featured status. I am doing this because I and other editors including User:HeBhagawan have worked very, very hard on this article. The article now has the Table of Contents to the left so there is no more huge gap in the article. There are many beautiful pics to the article. There are more wikilinks and alot of referances. Please let me know your opinoions. Please either say Support or Oppose and if possible leave reason why.
  

Seadog.M.S 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is looking good. I support making it a featured article. Judge for yourself. I have been a contributor to the article. HeBhagawan 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Suggestion. I took a quick look at it, and was struck by how wide the TOC was, perhaps you can use another level of headings or change the heading for the one long entry, so it fits better. Also there are a few red links, I'm not sure how important they are to understanding the rest of the text, but it might be worth stubifying them, so other people, especially IP users can edit them. Terri G 17:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC). Done. HeBhagawan

• Object—1a. Loosely written, lots of redundancies, uneven tone.
  • "Thus, Hinduism accepts a large number of scriptures, and remains open to any new revelations that may come in the future."(fixed_Seadog.M.S) Are the last three words redundant? ("... that may come in the past"?) I'm having difficulty in accepting such a sweeping assertion—what, Christian revelations too?...Yes from what I have studied from many differnt sources, Hinduism is a very open religion.--Seadog.M.S 14:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Of course" should probably not be used in an encyclopedic register. Chatty. Fixed that one--Seadog.M.S
  • "for many years before they were finally written down." Spot the redundant word.--Fixed that also--Seadog.M.S 14:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • "Hindus do not focus much on whether the stories found in the scriptures are accurate from a historical perspective"—Spot the redundant word. And at the end of the sentence, why not "are historically accurate"?--Fixed--Seadog.M.S 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • ""Heaven" and "Hell" may exist, but heaven is not considered the ultimate goal. This is because heaven and hell are temporary. The only thing that is eternal is divinity, which includes God as well as the ātman (the soul). Therefore the ultimate goal is to experience divinity.[35]" Is this a statement of what Hindus believe, or is WP putting its name to a universal assertion?
  • Please change title case to sentence case in the titles, as per MoS. Tony 13:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Done.--Rmky87 18:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good introduction, well explained, enough references, I do not find it lacking. | AndonicO Talk 12:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Fully Support This page is up to very high standards in both factual accuracy as well as grammar and tone. I feel it is both reliable as well as neutral, and the general tone... makes it one of the greatest articles that I have come across on Wikipedia. I agree with the excellent introduction and the fact that I am not aware of any lacks. Keep up the good work! Bhaveer 00:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Important procedural matters: (1) Allow reviewers to strike their own text, please. Crossing out yourself is not done. (2) HeBhagawan appears numerous times in the edit history. Please observe the rule concerning disclosing the fact that you're a contributor when you support a nomination. Further to my "object", here are more random examples of problems in the writing.
  • The ampersand is inappropriate in most contexts, and certainly in your titles (e.g., "God & the soul"). It's not a business name on a street sign.
  • Why is "Brahman" linked three times in 10 words? '... Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute reality: it is pure existence and knowledge. Brahman ...". And the link keeps appearing again and again. The less blue peppering, the neater the appearance. Why water down the links that you want readers to follow? Once is enough (even twice if you have to, I suppose.) Same with the other links: just the first time, please.
  • Has someone gone through the article to weed out redundancies? Here's just one: "God does not have any such attributes" (any).
  • "Project onto", not "on". (Occurs several times.)
  • So God has no gender? Why use "he" and "his", then?
  • "Hindus worship primarily one or another of these deities"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "the myriad names and forms of God one finds in Hinduism"—Spot the two redundant words.
  • "Although Hindus may worship deities other than their chosen ideal from time to time as well, depending on the occasion and their personal inclinations, it is not expected that they will worship—or even know about—every form of God." Remove "from time to time as well,"—it adds nothing. As soon as I see "it is expected", I want to know who's doing the expecting. Reword if you can't say.

Needs considerable work thoughout, not just the fixing of these points. Tony 02:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Too many sub headings. ToC congested. Should try to follow the gist style as far as applicable. Size is too big (even after considering the huge number of citations). Also, per Tony.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC). I think that the size of the article is very reasonable considering the scope and the importance of the subject matter. If you look in an quality book-form encyclopedia, you will also find long articles for major world religions. If it were much shorter, it would probably not be able to explain the religion in a manner that made sense.
• Suggestion I think that some of the terms be spelt consistently throughout, like Ishvara or iśvara and the like. Mar de Sin ^{Speak up!} 19:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't like the way the TOC is placed next to the text. If it's too long, the subsubsubections could be replaced by large fonts text using HTML (Just as World War 2 does). CG 05:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I spent some time cleaning up several redundant wikilinks and some minor punctuation and grammar mistakes, and came away very impressed with the article. This article does a great job of presenting Hinduism to a broad audience, especially considering the vast scope of Hinduism, and the many strong views held by different branches. I don't think that the article will ever please every Hindu - I had minor quibbles with some points - but that's just the nature of Hinduism. ॐ Priyanath 21:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I am new to this, but I would like to get to be a good editor.

• Comment. The presence of all these stubby sections is a problem. On the other size, this is indeed a very nicely done article.--Yannismarou 19:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Exceptional article. - Mike | Trick or Treat 03:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I would have loved to see a section on theism but it is already very long. Even without it, it is a very good article. -- P.K.Niyogi 04:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object, per WP:WIAFA, it fails criterion 3 for copyright images:
  • Image:UniversalForm.jpg → fails fair use rationale for this page.
  • Image:Lord_Ram.jpg → has obsolete license and it does not have link to the source.
  • Image:Vivekananda.png → has no source information. The source links to itself.
  • Image:Nataraja.jpg → has invalid fair use rationale, see the image summary as somebody had asked about this there.
  • Image:Tirumala_svtemple.jpg → has no source and no copyright information.
  • Image:DiwaliSwastika.jpg → has no fair use rationale for this image.
  • Image:Om2.jpg → has an obsolete license tag.

— Indon (reply) — 12:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - The article seems to be classifying some other religions like Buddhism and Jainism as schools of Hindu philosophy. Although their is definite influence, I am sure their will be many who disagree with the statement. You need proper citation for that statement and then also include opposing views. Furthermore, TOC is imposing and so is the length of the article. --Blacksun 19:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a Hindu from India and having attempted to edit the article, my experience is, no worthy edits are allowed in the article and the same is tried to be monopolised by a single editor. To me, the article is projecting improper connotation of the subject Hinduism. The references lead to a book source page and is not true reference to the respective text incorporated. The article is victim of sock-puppetry. Incivility is used to discourage other editors. Even if, the layout or the text is otherwise good, the article has to do justice to the subject matter but the article is forced to be devoid of logics of Hinduism doctrines and created to be seen Hinduism doctrines as superstitious which as a Hindu, I object. In principle, the article should be free for worthy edits which under one or other pretext or by sock-puppetry tactics is prevented from. It would be apparent from the talk page of Hinduism that incivility is freely used to discourage other edits. Citations for the matter of general knowledge of Hindus is sought and removed whereas other matters without due citations or supported by improper or false citations incorporated by a single editor or a group stay.

Is this all done to get FAC? then it's wrong.

While feeling honour as a Hindu, if, this article is nominated as FAC, I in principle plead that it should be considered whether right cause is backed by right means? Swadhyayee 07:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Hinduism"

Mr.Tony,

I have seen you applying mind to Hinduism shortcomings. My concern is HeBhagawan do not allow right connotations being incorporated in the article. My feeling is, it is due to the article having been nominated for FAC apart from his personal belief to be most fit to write Hinduism article.

I suffer a great deal of pain when Hinduism is projected dimly. I do not want to improperly glorify Hinduism but I want that right connotations of Hinduism find it's place in the article. Hinduism has capability to provide thinking for human religion, rather is a human religion. The philosophy imbibed in Hindus make them tolerant to contradictory views and contradictory customs. Hindus have a very large population. One may experience isolated incidents or groups intolerant to contradictory views and customs but average Hindu is very tolerant, co-operative and helping.

I am deadly against the psyche of any editor of not allowing others to incorporate facts of general knowledge in the name of citation. Though Hindus are strict vegetarians and believe in idol worship, they are not vengeful against Muslims. There may exist element of dislike but it's due to some other reasons. Christains and Parsis though non-veg. have excellent relationship with Hindus. This I am saying to support my statement that Hinduism is a human religion and I wish Hinduism is properly explained in the Wikipedia article.

To my mis-fortune, enough knowledgable editors are either not available or do not come forward to help. I am pretty sure that HeBhagawan is involved in sock-puppetry.

If you observe, he has to frequently edit his statements and yet you could point out poor language. In spite of this, he has been repeatedly involving in incivil comments against me that my English is not good, is full of grammatical mistakes, give a different meaning, my contributions damage the article and exhibit un-fettered authority by suggesting me to edit other articles or edit in other languages and is being supported by Priyanath to suggest me to write blogs or personal websites.

I have principled objections against Wikipedia articles being deprived of free edits. I believe, howsoever good one editor may be, he has no extra constitutional authority to prevent someone from incorporating additional facts in Wikipedia articles that not known to him. It's still worst to involve in sock-puppetry to make incivil coments to serve the malice purpose.

I do not know whether you have a chair of authority to help me or not but I found you interested in preserving standard for FAC and I wish you also hold views of significance of right means behind a right cause.

With due apology for long comments.

Swadhyayee 04:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tony1"

Object: Mr. HeBhagwan wants to generalize Hinduism, instead of focusing on the many theological differences Hindus have. I accepted his assertion that karma is merely a law of cause and effect even though the Vedanta school rejects it. And Vedanta is the dominant school in Hinduism. The problem with all editors insist on their point of view. For example, Aupmanav, insists on a view of atheism being represented in the article even though it's an insignificant view in Hinduism. And Mr. Hebhagwan even initially objected to the use of "many believe in the role of God in karma," and wanted to use the word, "some,". I do agree that he was civil.

Brahma Sutra 2.1.34: "No partiality and cruelty (can be charged against God) because of (His) taking other factors into consideration."

Sankara's commentary explains that God cannot be charged with partiality or cruelty (i.e. injustice) on account of his taking the factors of virtuous and vicious actions (Karma) performed by an individual in previous lives. If an individual experiences pleasure or pain in this life, it is due to virtuous or vicious action (Karma) done by that individual in a past life.

Many Hindus' view of Hinduism is shaped by Western influences and it may be reflected in the article. And Mr. Bhagwan's sources for karma in Hinduism is mainly derived from such persons, except swami vivekanda: Pratima Bowes, The Hindu Religious Tradition 54-80 (Allied Pub. 1976) ISBN 0-7100-8668; Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. II, at 217-225 (18th reprint 1995) ISBN 81-85301-75-1; Alex Michaels, Hinduism: Past and Present 154-56 (Princeton 1998) ISBN 0-691-08953-1.

I do agree that Mr. HeBhagwan has been civil.

Raj2004 10:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that this article would be much better if editors kept in mind that Wikipedia is read by a broad audience, and that the Hinduism article is likely read most often by non-Hindus who are using Wikipedia the way it was intended - as an encyclopedia. So, the article needs speak to the general, non-Hindu audience, as well as educating Hindus about Hinduism. I don't believe there is a pressing need to address every single concern of each philosophy, school of thought, and believer. I've kept many of my own beliefs out of the article for this reason. The specifics are more appropriate to other subject articles, like Karma, Tilak, etc. The Hinduism article should be a very broad, general article that introduces people to Hinduism.

Swadhyayee, addressing your concern that people are editing this article for the sole purpose of making it a Featured Article: 1. It's not a bad motive to try and bring an important article up to the highest standards of Wikipedia. 2. To allay your concerns, I for one have recently let go of any illusion that Hinduism will ever make Featured Article status. This doesn't change how I'll be editing it, because I think it's an important article. I will still work on making it meet Wikipedia's standards. For such a long and broad article, that means clarity, brevity when possible, good grammar, and a style that speaks to the broadest possible audience (rather than a discussion between Hindus about their personal and strongly held beliefs on what is Hinduism). ॐ Priyanath 18:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I agree with Priyanath, In my opinion the reason why I nominated the article is because the article in my opinion is fine and not lacking. I know that getting this article featured is a very diffucult task because. 1. There are dissagreements between editors on certain parts of the article, but usually it is disscussed on the talk page and most often than not the problem has been solved. 2. Most of the Editors who edit this article are Hindus. You must keep in mind that being considered a Hindu is very open. The different "denominations" are close in beliefs but have differences. These differnces may cause different veiws on how the article should be written i.e Veiws on God, Karma, Rebirth and etc. The Hindu Denominations have somewhat different views on these subjects. The article won't and can never please every Hindu and every non-hindu but the article in my opinion is up to FA criteria. Yes there are still places here and there in the article that needs a little touch-up, but instead of dragging on them and complaining about them why not Fix Them. If you see a run on sentance devide it up, if you see too much blue links take some out. If you came here to drag on why the article is lacking in a few places feel free to fix them. We need as much help as we can get. Also in my opinion HeBhagawan has been very, very civil. When I made a mistake he told me what he felt should be changed and we have worked it out. Swadhyayee has also been a good editor and is learning the right things. In the past he created some problems but is still learning from his mistakes. Remember this is about the Hinduism article not about the editors.-_Seadog 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object — Should include a "Criticism of hinduism" summary section, rather than just a link. This will bring it in line with the Christianity and Islam articles. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sydney Roosters

This article previously had previously been nominated for featured status earlier this year, but failed because of a number of shortcomings relatingly mostly to references and the structure of the article. However, in the past few weeks I've put some work into it to get it to what I believe is of featured article status. The article appears to be well-written, well-referenced and only includes information that is relevant and essential. It recently went through a peer review and all suggestions to improve the article have been done. --mdmanser 01:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks good to me! But one question: why are Eastern Suburbs and Sydney City Roosters bolded in the second paragaph? It seems unncessary to me. Never Mystic (tc) 01:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I used the featured article Arsenal F.C. as a model for this article. I noticed under their history section the names of both the former and current clubs were bolded, perhaps as an identification of an important name in the overall context of the article. I naturally did the same with the former club names of the Sydney Roosters as well. As you said, it was probably unnecessary in the first place and I'm on your on the issue. --mdmanser 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That's cool. You've done a good job on this article! Never Mystic (tc) 02:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any reason why this article is not featured content. Todd661 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wholly good article, but I personally don't think that there are enough references for an article of its size, and the lead section could do with an extra paragraph, to be honest. SergeantBolt (t,c) 21:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Specifically, which parts of the article do you believe need to be cited further? I'll put them in you suggest any.--mdmanser 22:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. For example, the second para in the lead is a real problem.

Eastern Suburbs were founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters. In 2000 they again changed their playing name to their current name, the Sydney Roosters. The Bondi Junction-based Roosters have a long-standing and fierce rivalry with neighbours the South Sydney Rabbitohs located in Redfern, who are the only other remaining foundation club.

• • You've referred to the Eastern Suburbs as a location in the first para, and now it's assumed that the same words refer to, or used to refer, to the club. You shouldn't have to reread it to work it out. You do, in fact, spell it out at the start of History, but that's too late.
  • "Roosters" occurs three times in four lines; remove the middle reference.
  • "with neighbours the" is ungainly.

And further:

• • No hyphen after -ly.
  • "Eastern Suburbs, as they were more commonly known as, were also donned the unofficial nickname the "Tricolours" due to the use of the club's red, white and blue playing strip." Riddled with mistakes and ungainly prose.
  • Trust me, an en dash is better than a hyphen (32-16 --> 32–16).
  • "kicked off their existence"—No way.

These are just a few examples at the top. You need to locate copy-editors who are interested in this topic and who are relatively unfamiliar with the text of this article. Major clean-up required. Tony 15:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've located and made ammendments to some areas which I felt were a little weak in grammar. Hopefully you feel the article is closer to being featured now. --mdmanser 08:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well structured, well written, very informative. There is no reason why it should not be.Sbryce858 13:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very light on references imho. There is only one in the colours section, and few in the history and so on. (non free use) images lack fair use reasonings. Also, how many players in the current squad really deserve an article of their own? In all honesty? People seem to just create players so that the squad looks pretty without red links, I mean, some of those guys have not even made a first grade debut! That needs to be looked at. Good article, but not yet ready imo.Narrasawa 06:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Narrasawa could you please highlight areas that need references. All sufficient information has the footnotes required, plus the history of the club has an entire reference of the entire article from another source. Also I'd like to correct you, the fact being that all players listed have made their first grade debut and also raise the fact that the Sydney Roosters article itself is the one being analysed here, no other article. I fail to see any relevance to how other articles linked to the Sydney Roosters one bears any relevance at all. IMO you've objected on biased view and have stated things that are incorrect.124.186.243.153 09:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through and reference whatever you'd like. A previous person commented on the same issue but didn't offer any advice. I just feel that it is in most cases unnecessary to reference every single sentence. Each of the players in the article have made their First Grade (top grade) debut, which definitely contitutes an article. However, because of two requests for more citations, I will do just that right now. --mdmanser 10:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I've just added another half a dozen references to reinforce what's been said so far. I can't find anywhere else in the article that requires citing attention now. --mdmanser 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the changes Mdmanser made in response to my post. Thanks!-Narrasawa 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• It shouldn't still be easy to find problems in the writing if this is a serious nomination. For example:
  • "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name Eastern Suburbs, but in 1994 changed their name to the Sydney City Roosters." We have "was", then "their". Which is it, singular or plural? "In 1908" would be neater after "founded". Please consider using quotes for "Eastern Suburbs" rather than bolding it. The "but" is a little uncomfortable—which part of the previous clause are you going to contradict? Why not: "The club was founded in Paddington, Sydney, in 1908 under the name "Eastern Suburbs"; in 1994, the name was changed to "The Sydney City Roosters", and in 2000 to just "The Sydney Roosters".
  • "... who are, along with the Sydney Roosters, the only other remaining foundation club in the National Rugby League." What's "other" doing here?

Not only does the writing throughout fail 1a; the lead fails 2a—See WP:LS Tony 07:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object - as pointed out by Tony, the prose problems are extensive and the article needs a thorough copyedit. The article is also undercited, and some of the references need to be expanded to contain full bibliographic info (for example, newspapers should include publication date and author, where available). I fixed the footnotes to comply with WP:FN. Sandy (Talk) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• • The -ly + hyphen is still there; perhaps I shouldn't bother pointing out specific issues.
  • "An major reason for this success"—nope.
  • "eighteen", yet "19".

These are entirely at random. Very easy to find. Tony 11:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Government Commission for England (1992)

Self-nomination. Been working on-and-off on this one for a while. Finally realised I had acess to an online newspaper archive so I could make it properly complete. Only comprehensive treatment of this topic on the interweb that I've seen. Oh, and it has 114 references. Morwen - Talk 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont feel the lead is very comprehensive on what this government organization does. Can you fix this? - Tutmosis 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I cetainly see no problem with expanding the lead - I'll try - but 'what it did' is make proposals and consult, and I'm not sure how to say much more than that without getting into details? How is lead now? Morwen - Talk 21:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On first glance, I see messy footnotes throughout: please correct the footnote punctuation. The text has redundancies throughout, quick example: He greatly accelerated the programme of work, directing the Commission to start reviews of all remaining shire counties the next month, and that they should be finished by the end of 1994. One-sentence paragraphs, in succession, including this one: The commission published draft proposals on these districts in September 1995, recommending that of them, Blackpool, Blackburn, Halton Northampton, Peterborough, Thurrock, Warrington and the Wrekin should become unitary authorities, and also that Rochester upon Medway and Gillingham should unite to form a single unitary authority. (Do we need all of the words "unite", "single" and "unitary"?) Just samples: please run through the entire text again with an eye for redundancy. Sandy 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I shall endeavour to fix the footnotes/punctuation thing. There are some words that could be cut and I shall look at this. The repetition you identify there is not as bad as you make out - "unitary authority" is a stock phrase, and is not redundant with "unite" or "single". As to unite and single, maybe, but this helps with emphasis in showing we are talking about two things merging here. Morwen - Talk 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The lead still doesn't explain what this is. Just answer this question: Local Government Commission for England is responsible for...? - Tutmosis 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It was responsible for reviewing the structure of local government in England from 1992 to 1995, and subsequently did redistricting. The intro says that, doesn't it?

I've removed some redundancy and have tried to fix the punctuation issues. Morwen - Talk 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Ref/punctuation issues should be resolved now. Gimmetrow 05:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. In the Timetable section it would be nice if the areas mentioned in the text were highlighted on the maps. At the moment it is not obvious where these changes are being made, especially as the maps shown are quite small. CheekyMonkey 08:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I shall certainly do that. I'll make the new unitaries yellow and the rump two-tiers blue created in that year? Morwen - Talk 09:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This matches the key used above, so sounds good to me. CheekyMonkey 11:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I did this now. Morwen - Talk 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks really good. I have another (nit-picky) comment regarding two of the sub headings. Could 'Start' not be renamed to something like 'Establishment' and 'Table' renamed to something like 'Summary of Commission proposals'? CheekyMonkey 09:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Morwen - Talk 03:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article is comprehensive yet concise and I now Support. CheekyMonkey 10:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I like this article and I think it is close to being featured but there are a few things to tweak at this stage.

1. Can we get a source for Michael Heseltine's favouring unitary local government?
2. It had also long been Labour Party policy to favour unitary local government in principle, which was one reason why the government thought they were not doing anything politically risky. I can try and hunt out sources for that.
3. Were the court cases fought by aggrieved County Councils reported? If so this would be a useful link.
4. The section headed "Implementation and Cooksey commission" is too long and could be split up.
5. It would be a good idea to explain why more police authorities had to become joint boards. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

1 and 3 both have sources in newspaper reports which are indicated? Laying out Labour's position would be good - we'd probably need to find a source that analysed their behaviour : from my reading they regarded it as a big gerrymandering campaign to start with, and a total shambles at the end, but supported specific bits of it. To 4 and 5 yes and yes. Morwen - Talk 08:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By 'reported' in 3 I meant 'legally reported', eg 'Lancashire County Council v. Secretary of State for the Environment 1 EWHC 789'. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 08:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes. There seems to be something here about that, but I don't know how to cite that. Morwen - Talk 09:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few more bits about Labour's attitude at the time. Morwen - Talk 22:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

So this seems to have stalled now - I think I've fixed all outstanding points (bar the legal citation thing) - but I've not got many positive supports... is this topic just too boring? Morwen - Talk 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the article is pretty comprehensive and well referenced, the maps are excellent and the "timetable" section is laid out in an innovative and clear manner. It's generally very good, and I'll be happy to support if some of these small suggestions are addressed:
  1. Could the first sentence be a brief statement of what the Commission was? Currently, the process by which it was created is given first, followed by wording from the Act which formed it - this may not be entirely clear to the casual reader.
  2. Also in the introduction, "rewarding" is slightly confusing as it suggests that some sort of prize was given! Perhaps either "re-warding" or a short phrase would be clearer for the intro?
  3. It would be good to have some explanation as to why the Commission was formed. It seems to have had entirely new personnel; why did the Government not use the old Commission?
  4. Is it correct that Banham was named chair before the Commission was formed? This seems presumptuous - was it commented on at the time?
  5. With regard to Lancashire and Derbyshire CCs' court case, do we have the text of the sentence in dispute? It seems that it should be central to this paragraph.
  6. It would be interesting to have something more on the Commission's reasoning in the very different proposals for different counties - for instance, what reason did they give for recommending the abolition of Berkshire and Dorset CCs, when they recommended the retention of so many others?
  7. I imagine that worries about legal action may have led to recommendations to leave so many counties unchanged despite Gummer's advice - is there any sourceable speculation on this (or any other possible reasons)?
  8. Banham resigned in 1995 - who took over as chair?
  9. The "other changes" section has no sources - the first paragraph, at least, could do with some.
  10. What did the Commission do after 1998? The intro states that it wasn't replaced until 2002 - was it entirely inactive?
• I hope to see this become a featured article soon. Warofdreams talk 02:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
• Good comments, I shall try to see how many of these I can address. Morwen - Talk 09:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support now that several of these points have been addressed, and work seems to be progressing on several others. Warofdreams talk 23:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
    • With respect to the remaining few: 3) he was named to the post in November according to a newspaper article the next year. this made no splash at the time, apparently : i'm not even able to find contemporary news reports about it, only after-the-fact ones. can't really work that into the article. 7) yeah, the court case had a big impact in what the commission was recommending. i'l try to source something about that: you'll note for instance in Derbyshire that its proposal under the re-review was in fact more conservative than the 1st proposal. Morwen - Talk 08:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support an excellent article about a difficult-to-write-about subject. Rama's arrow 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pending The first paragraph under "establishment" is a little confusing, because it first says that "Initially [when?] the Secretary of State was Michael Heseltine" and then jumps back to consider the history of counties since 1972. You might want to hold off on mentioning Heseltine until the second paragraph. On the whole, though, this is a very thorough, well-researched piece that doesn't deserve to have been stalled as a FAC for as long as it has been. I will look to see if I can find anything else that needs fixing, but am planning to support. MLilburne 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Point. I'll fix that. I'm also just about to address User:Warofdreams's point 7 above. Morwen - Talk 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The prose should be fixed. Overall, it's not bad, but there are little glitches throughout. For example, in the lead:
  • "The Act allowed the Secretary of State to order the Commission to undertake 'structural reviews' in specified areas, to create unitary authorities in the two-tier shire counties of England." (Third sentence from the top.) To ... to ... is unclear. Should the second one be replaced with "as a prelude to creating"/"as part of a program of creating"?
  • "After much political debate, and several legal challenges, the Commission's proposals resulted in ..."—Why not remove the first comma?
  • "The Commission continued in existence reviewing electoral arrangements"—"Continued in existence reviewing" is very clumsy.
  • "led to creation of unitary authorities"—THE creation?

Please get someone else to run through the whole article thoroughly. Tony 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you suggest where I can find "someone else" to do that? I am unaware of any "requests for copyedit" page. Morwen - Talk 07:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at doing a full copyedit myself : but I was not able to identify as many problems in the article as you seem to have identified in the lead. Maybe the lead prose was worse? Or maybe I am not a professional copyeditor :) Morwen - Talk 08:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to find collaborators to help with the prose. Tony 08:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object I fixed the ref punctuation to agree with WP:FN. I concur with Tony that there are extensive prose issues, calling for a thorough copyedit; an overuse of "this led to" and "as a result of" also makes the prose repetitive and uncompelling. It is unclear why basic sentences require four cites, or why links to some of the references (The Guardian) aren't provided. Sandy (Talk) 22:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The guardian news archive isn't online that far back, as far as i am aware. As I noted before, if there are suggestions as to where I could go for a copyedit I will take that. Unfortunately, I can't magic up the copyediting fairy. I will try to fix every actionable specific objection, but the phrases here identified only happen a few times. There is one case I agree with removing in that it repeats this phrase in the next paragraph, and I shall do this. Morwen - Talk 21:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further, with respect to references, I don't see any particular problems here. In some cases, entire paragraphs cite several sources: one or maybe two primary sources (Hansard), and a couple of news stories, which often aren't duplicates of each other anyway (guardian will say ABC, Times will say CDE). It seems sensible to cite a range of sources when alleging political motivations - if the Times and the Guardian agree on something then it is probably true. Morwen - Talk 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)