Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

2006 /November 2006, 65 promoted /October 2006, 44 promoted /September 2006, 48 promoted /August 2006, 50 promoted /July 2006, 53 promoted /June 2006, 43 promoted /May 2006, 45 promoted /April 2006, 41 promoted /March 2006, 44 promoted /February 2006, 35 promoted /January 2006, 43 promoted 2005 /December 2005, 36 promoted /November 2005, 37 promoted /October 2005, 34 promoted /September 2005, 36 promoted /August 2005, 45 promoted /July 2005, 37 promoted /June 2005, 40 promoted /May 2005, 33 promoted /April 2005, 31 promoted /March 2005, 46 promoted /February 2005, 37 promoted /January 2005, 24 promoted 2004 /December 2004, 31 promoted /November 2004, 37 promoted /October 2004, 34 promoted /September 2004, 48 promoted /August 2004, 44 promoted /July 2004, 36 promoted /June 2004, 17 promoted /May 2004, 28 promoted /April 2004, 18 promoted /March 2004, 8 promoted /February 2004, 15 promoted /January 2004, 7 promoted 2003 /December 2003, 31 promoted /November 2003, 8 promoted /October 2003 and before, 75 promoted

Contents 1 Full current month log 1.1 Hero of Belarus 1.2 Bodyline 1.3 Caspian expeditions of the Rus 1.4 Megadeth 1.5 California Gold Rush 1.6 Battle of Dien Bien Phu 1.7 White Deer Hole Creek 1.8 Aldol reaction 1.8.1 Summary? 1.9 Russian Ground Forces 1.10 Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon 1.11 Tropical Storm Henri (2003) 1.12 Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942) 1.13 Clement of Dunblane 1.14 History of Solidarity second nomination 1.15 Empires: Dawn of the Modern World 1.16 Ian Thorpe 1.17 2005 United States Grand Prix 1.18 Jocelin 1.19 Thylacine 1.20 Weymouth 1.21 Cyclol 1.22 Joseph W. Tkach 1.23 Scottish Parliament 1.24 Indian Standard Time 1.24.1 Conspiracy Here & Absolute Oppose 1.25 Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope 1.26 Bacteria 1.27 Minnesota 1.28 Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)

[edit] Full current month log

view - edit - history

[edit] Hero of Belarus

This article was FA before, but was farc'ed because of lack of maintainence on my part. After I got some of my other projects out of the way, I started to bring this article back to shape and see now if it is FA worthy, again.

The first problems people had was the citations. When I wrote this in May of 2005, I did not know about the (ref) tags, either because I was still too new or that wasn't started yet. Regardless, I used that system in this cleanup and used 16 references (with some of them repeating). Second, people are having problem with some of the grammar. I have tried to fix that as the best as I could, but grammar has been an issue haunting me a lot on Wikipedia. Any help on that is welcome. Third, at the time when I wrote this, I had some illustrations and I was a noob to copyright law. Now, I know a lot about it and many of the former illustrations have been nuked. Some other concerns, about missing sections, I have included some more information and added a new section dealing with misc. topics.

My main goal for this FAC is not much, except for getting that shiny brown star again on it's talk page. It has been on the main page before, so don't worry about that. However, if there is anything I missed, let me know and I will try and make sure it gets added/subtracted from the article. Thanks again. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. How about turning the Recipients section into a table? Some points for readability could be earned as I think. --Brand спойт 19:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the flowing prose in that section is preferrable to a table. I can't give my official comment on the article yet. If the nominator's main concern is grammar, then I'll have to give this an in depth read. Just don't want anyone turning prose into a table when it isn't necessary. Jay32183 00:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I have not thought about a table, but I am not sure it is going to work. There is going to be a lot of information about the heroes that would be lost if a table is used. While I know that the 2001 and 2006 heroes will be alright, I am afraid the paragraph on Karvat will be lost if it is put in the table format. However, Brand, I thank you for your suggestion. Jay, take your time, there is no hurry. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Support. No serious issues to fix in my opinion. --Brand спойт 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support After further review, the writing looks good. Excellent work bringing a former featured article up to the current standard. Jay32183 05:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For future reference, I originally created this article and brought to FA the first time around, but I let the article go to waste. I am glad it is back up to standards now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, looks good. [ælfəks] 03:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 09:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bodyline

Former FA, (very) recently defeatured because of lack of inline citations, now fixed. Outstanding prose of a quality rarely encountered in WP, useful and enlightening illustrations and a sound retelling of the complex story of one of those exceptionally rare occasions where sporting controversy leads to serious political ramifications - in this case, just about averted. --Dweller 09:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Concerns raised at FAR were subsequently addressed. Sandy (Talk) 09:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Deserves its title back. Has proper citations now. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A comprehensive and entertaining read. jguk 12:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support and Ouch! --Xtreambar 18:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support nice restoration work and in such a short time too. Jay32183 19:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - the FAR criteria have been fixed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support a restore of FA. One comment: the article refers to the TV miniseries as "Bodyline: It's just not cricket", whereas IMDB and the DVD cover in the article both make no reference to the subtitle? --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Acs4b 15:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Needs a copy-edit throughout. Here are examples from the top.
  • "several of the Laws of Cricket were changed to prevent this kind of tactic being used again"—The last three words are redundant: beautiful example.

Thanks. Fixed (although I don't think it was dreadful as it was) --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "that could be caught by one of several fielders located in the quadrant of the field behind square leg." Remove "located". Why is the "square leg" link piped to "Fielding" when there's a WP article on square leg? And if you're going to pipe it to "Fielding", why not to the specific section where s l is mentioned? I had to use my finder to locate it in that linked article.

Square Leg has nothing to do with cricket. Personally, I don't think that the fielding article is very good and there's no specific reference to square leg worth the mention. The best is the diagram. Anyone unfamiliar with the concept of fielding positions probably only needs to know that it is a fielding position... which the current link does admirably. --Dweller 23:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "and make the ball come up into the body of the batsman"—not well expressed: "into"? Sounds like a penetration. "Make" is a little awkward; what about "so that the ball would strike the batsman's body"?
  • "to fend the ball away"—fend away? Try "deflect". Tony 03:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think that fend is more appropriate in this sense as we are talking about using gloves, etc at chest-neck height pushing the ball away at an awkward height. Using deflect gives the impression the batsman may have played a sublime leg glance or square cut or something... Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree. Fend implies a defensive element that deflect does not. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 06:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - the DVD cover needs a justification for fair use. gren グレン 08:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Caspian expeditions of the Rus

This is a good article now, and several editors on its talk page have suggested nominating it for FA. It had a peer review by the WikiProject Military history, which is available here. The article is comprehensive, fully referenced, and well-illustrated, so it should be up to the FA standard. User:Ghirlandajo and User:Briangotts have greatly contributed to improving the article, special thanks to Briangotts for drawing two highly informative maps. Beit Or 11:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I would like to note that the article is fresh. It was started on Oct. 18 and represents the most comprehensive treatment of the obscure topic available anywhere in the web. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Kmorozov 10:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Can a native English speaker look through the lead? I believe we can improve prose here. E.g. is there a synonym to the word spoils? It is used in every second sentence. Otherwise a very good article on an interesting topic. Alex Bakharev 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Of the six times the word "spoils" appears in the article, I have changed three of them. Now it does not appear in any section more than once. --Grimhelm 15:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I just made a minor correction to clarify things about a possible connection between Ingvar's expedition and the Byzantine-Georgian conflict.--Kober 11:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support I tidied up one or two of the image captions, but aside from that the article seems to cover an interesting topic quite well. --Grimhelm 14:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Acs4b 15:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per Ghirlandajo.--Eupator 19:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. —dmytro/s-ko/© 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - excellent article, like many of the early slavic ones. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Object—1a. Here are examples that indicate that the whole text needs serious copy-editing.

• • "On their way back home, the raiders from the north were attacked and defeated by Khazar Muslims in the Volga Delta, and those who escaped were finished off by the local tribes on the middle Volga." Slightly informal for this register: "back home"? Better as "On their return". "Finished off"? Very loose—what does it mean: killed? Routed? Beaten in battle?
    • No. Massacred. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "Afterwards, several more raids occurred; the last Scandinavian attempt to reestablish the route ..." Like "eventually", "afterwards" does not belong in an encyclopedic register: it's just too vague. "Further" might be better than "more". Hyphen within "reestablish".

And further down from the lead, at random:

• • "No later than in the early 9th century, the Norsemen settled in Northwestern Russia, where about six miles south of the Volkhov River entry into Lake Ladoga, they established a settlement called Aldeigja (Slavic: Ladoga)." Quirky construction at the start. Make it "By the early 9th century, the Norsemen had settled ...". Why the N for northwestern? Metric equivalent ...? Relocate the "they established" clause to straight after "where".

Not good. Tony 01:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Made changes suggested by Tony.--Riurik ^(discuss) 05:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But what about the rest of the article? Mine were just examples. Tony 05:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The response from Ghirlandajo (see below) is that an expectation of brilliance is subjective and arbitrary and hence non-actionable. Yet, if not brilliant, is the prose compelling as stated by Wikipedia:What is a featured article? #1(a). I think Tony's objection and my comment on the issue are valid and "actionable".--Riurik ^(discuss) 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could pinpoint some passages that you find to be less than well-written? Otherwise, this comment is difficult to address. Beit Or 21:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot do the the actual copy-editing. I do have two items that may be answered...Under the Destruction of Khazaria section, it is stated that several possibilities have been suggested explaining the roots of the conflict. Maybe this can be made more clear and organized. I counted three possibilities. If that's the case, a possible revision may be: "There are three explanations for x, y, z. etc, etc..."

Also, the first sentence: The Caspian expeditions of the Rus were military raids undertaken by the Rus between 864 and 1041 on the Caspian Sea shores. Is there another way to say the same thing without using the Rus twice? I made one alternative change, but was accused of being an anti-Normanist. I was not even aware of either position (Normanist and anti-) until then. Are the Rus not the East Slavic people?--Riurik ^(discuss) 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 01:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the article can benefit from copy-editing, for example, currently the prose is not "compelling, even brilliant", but the content is superb.--Riurik ^(discuss) 06:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great! Khoikhoi 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, looks like a featured one. Hello32020 13:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --Boguslavmandzyuk 06:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. In general, the article is informative, well-structured, well-researched and well-referenced. These are my remarks about the article:

• The "See also" section has only two links. I think you could easily get rid of this section by incorporating the two links into the body of the text.
• Is it ibn Khordadbeh or Ibn Khordadbeh, because the title of his article is Ibn Khordadbeh?

• The first letter of the title of WP articles is ALWAYS capitalized. The correct usage is ibn Khordadbeh. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is an inconsistency concerning the books mentioned in references. Some of them published after 1990 have ISBNs, while others also published after 1990 do not have.

• ISBNs added, where applicable. Beit Or 10:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Persons and terms come and go without any information about them. Who is ibn Khordadbeh and who al-Masudi? Yes, you link them, but I think that you shhould clarify in this article that they are prominent Muslim historians of the X or Z century. Again what is the Primary Chronicle? I want an explanation in this article!
• For me the writing is OK. But I'm not a native English speaker, while Tony is one, and I take seriously into consideration his remarks (and Riurik's as well). Maybe a slight copy-editing by an external native English editor would be helpful for the article. I'm sure the article's prose is "good", but I'm not sure it is "brillant".--Yannismarou 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

  I have been reviewing the evolution of Yannis' FA standards for quite some time and I advise everyone to take them cum grano salis. Per WP:POINT, Wikipedia is not consistent and it should not be. Any attempt to force consistence on Wikipedia articles is ill-advised. Our articles are not expected to repeat general information on every ABC term that is mentioned in the text. If you want to know what Primary Chronicle is, it's enough to click the link to this article. That's how online encyclopaedia works, as opposed to a paper encyclopaedia. The concept of "brilliance" of prose-writing is inherently subjective and arbitrary, hence non-actionable. Furthermore, following Yannis' self-imposed standards makes the article overlong and basically unreadable as his own articles are. I believe this is the issue for Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee. I am surprized that they have not split Demosthenes or El Greco into three nice 32K articles as yet. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Huh? Not sure why you're lashing out at Yannismarou here...I particularly don't see where Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee comes into play...I don't think Yannis suggested any expansion of this article... Gzkn 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  What is this if not a request for expansion where it is not needed: "Persons and terms come and go without any information about them. Who is ibn Khordadbeh and who al-Masudi? Yes, you link them, but I think that you shhould clarify in this article that they are prominent Muslim historians of the X or Z century. Again what is the Primary Chronicle? I want an explanation in this article!" Yannis' premise that every article mentioning Leo Tolstoy (or al-Masudi) should introduce him as "the Russian novelist of the nineteenth century" (or "the Arab historian of the tenth century") is fundamentally wrong. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Oh...thought you meant Yannis wanted new sections in the article or something. Anyway, I don't see what the big fuss is all about...I'm sure Yannis means well...he is a very friendly editor, and he did preface his comments with "the article is informative, well-structured, well-researched and well-referenced". :) Gzkn 11:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  My remarks have nothing to do with expanding the article. I speak about a few more words, not even adding 1 kb to the article. And I proposed these minor explanations (which is a minor issue anyway), because here we do not have to do with Tolstoi, but with some historians, institutions etc., which are not known to the majority of the readers. Who has a clue about the "Primary Chronicle" outside Russia? Not me and I think not many other readers. I must say I'm surprised by the personal attacks against me; taking into consideration the fact that I did not comment negatively on anybody here, but I made some (mostly minor) remarks about the article. If Ghirla thinks that by insulting others and attacking their contributions in Wikipedia, serves this FAC he is wrong. I'm even more surprised, because I did not object, but, on the other side, I lauded the high quality of the article. Nevertheless, I'm happy, because the nominator does not follow the same tactics with the above mentioned user; this is something very positive and I have to stress it. I also thank Briangotts and Beith for their swift and accurate responses on their remarks. At least, they know which is the right attitude towards a FAC reviewer.--Yannismarou 14:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Yannis, where do you see an insult or a personal attack? I often call into question your nebulous standards of what FA should look like and I don't believe my criticism of your approach qualifies as a personal attack. Also, there is no insult in pointing out that many of your articles are extremely long. Please cool off and don't resort to ad hominem arguments and comparisons. Best, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for your interest in me cooling off. Whatever you may say about my "nebulous FAC standards", I feel vindicated, when, for instance, I see the level of referencing of this article (where you are an editor, if I'm not wrong). You were saying in the past that inline citations are not necessary, while this article (whose you are an editor) has citations in almost every phrase. According to your previous arguments, this shouldn't happen, and this article should be regarded as "extremely referenced". Anyway, I'm happy, because your actions negate your words and vindicate my positions. I'll be always here, in order to offer you guidance that you will first ridicule and then implement. Best, --Yannismarou 07:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)--

• Support. Seems good enough to me. --PaxEquilibrium 13:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Can someone put a ref for the first para of section "Raid of 913"? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have done so. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A superb piece of work. --Irpen 06:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Megadeth

Self-nomination. This article was put up for FA before I got a hold of it, but has been completely rewritten, formatted, cited, and peer reviewed. It may be a little long in kilobytes, but nearly half of that is inline citations, and seems comparable to other music FA's such as The KLF, Rush (band), and Pink Floyd. -- Skeletor2112 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a remarkable improvement over the previous version. Well cited, very detailed while staying on topic, and well-written. Great work. Jay32183 23:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, so long as you fix the categories. Why is it in Category:American heavy metal groups and Category:Heavy metal groups? Country specific categories are already subcategories of the main category, so putting the article in both is wrong. They should only be in the American one, the general one should only contains band that don't yet have a specific heavy metal category for their country. Also, why are they in the speed metal, thrash metal and heavy metal categories? Pick just one - the article describes them as a heavy metal band, so I would go with that. Otherwise, article is fine. Proto::► 13:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've removed the Category:Heavy metal groups. Not sure what you mean about the genre categories though, after all, they belong to each one of these genres. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the speed metal category, even though they were commonly referred to as a speed metal band, the term has fallen out of favor, and is somewhat contested these days. But the band is widley considered both "thrash metal" (early albums) and "heavy metal" (later albums), since their sound has changed greatly in the past 20 years. Skeletor2112 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Weak support. Please correct the excessive music samples problem as described over the Slayer discussion page, once you done with it I will probably switch to full support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all of the extra samples, leaving only Grammy nominated songs, and "hits" like "Symphony" and "Trust", ect. Skeletor2112 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The lead shouldn't be inline cited - the lead is meant to be a summary of the article. Any info in the lead should be in the body of the article also and cited there. LuciferMorgan 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all cites from the lead paragraph. Skeletor2112 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Thorough, well written, and well referenced. It wasn't ready last time, but it is now.JeffStickney 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support As stated.--K-UNIT 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, great article. Deizio talk 00:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, universally rocking! Also very well written and well referenced article. FrummerThanThou 03:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The above user seems to speedily tagging some of the articles on FAC with {{LEAD}} without bothering to actually read them...:-/ (see Special:Contributions/FrummerThanThou). Gzkn 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The KLF has a lead roughly the same size, and won a Wikimania 2006 Award, so I don't feel the objection is actionable. LuciferMorgan 20:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

FrummerThanThou, can you explain what "not universally rocking" means? The lead has been combined into four paragraphs, as per WP:LEAD, and is roughly the same size as the Battle of Dien Bien Phu page, which you voted to support today. Skeletor2112 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Image problems. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg fails WP:FUC #1 and needs deleting. Five other images are sourced to some fansite, with no indication of copyright holder (failing WP:FUC #10) and need deleting -- they should have been tagged as "found on an unconfirmed website", not as "promotional". One of them is apparantly the back of an album cover, so that one at least could probably be properly sourced -- look in the liner notes for the photographer and copyright info. Jkelly 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Gigantour is the official tour website of Megadeth's latest tour and is a confirmed website. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg meets WP:FUC, as the picture is promotional and is intended for use by third parties. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You need to actually read my comment. Image:Megadeth-Band-2006.jpg fails WP:FUC #1 (and is now so tagged -- incidentally, it also fails #10). The rest of the images are from fansite with a Polish extension, except for the one that is a back of an album cover, which is nevertheless credited to the same Polish fansite. Jkelly 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem so certain it fails #1, what free equivalent is available then?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs).

Image:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg is a recent photo of the band. In case it is helpful, I've cropped it -- Image:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg -- to remove the extraneous overhead space. In any case, we don't need to already possess a freely licensed image to know that something is replaceable. Many editors spend significant time asking people to donate their photography under a free license. You can find some examples of polite letters to use at Wikipedia:Boilerplate requests for permission. Jkelly 23:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So we should remove Image:Megadeth at Sauna.jpeg and make Image:Megadeth at Sauna crop.jpg the lead image, and then just remove all the images marked as unsourced? I want to make sure I understand your suggestion. Jay32183 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

More or less, except that I really have no opinion on whether the cropped version should be used or not... that's an aesthetic decision, and you should feel free to use whichever version of the freely-licensed photograph that the local editors prefer. Jkelly 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've tagged the images as having no source won't a bot remove them from the article and in a few days it won't be an issue? Jay32183 21:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, most of the images need to be deleted, and when they are my objection has been dealt with, but that means the article will look quite different once the problem images are gone. Jkelly 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well when the images are gone, it's obvious someone will moan about lack of images, which may I add isn't a valid reason for objection.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs).

Support, Well written and well referenced article. Acs4b 16:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Well written with plenty of pictures, music samples, etc... It's a lot better than most featured articles Freezing the mainstream

[edit] California Gold Rush

I am nominating California Gold Rush, which had an extensive peer review and has been rated a Good article. It is very well-referenced, and meets all of the FA criteria: well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. While I did not create the article, I did contribute significant portions. This is the first nomination of this article. NorCalHistory 19:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I should add that this article is the Selected article of the California Portal. NorCalHistory 20:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

*Object, mildly. On the whole it's a good article, but it lacks any direct mention of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company (that article also needs some work, by the way), which played an important role in the development of California during the gold rush era, and which was itself greatly affected by the gold discovery. Whyaduck 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Fixed Information was in article; added specific name Pacific Mail Steamship Company (PS: I agree that PMSC article could use some work - sounds like a fascinating topic!).NorCalHistory 03:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • OK. I might make a couple of small, clarifying additions to the Pacific Mail article myself (there's a lot of information about the company available online), but haven't the time to do the full expansion the subject deserves.

• Comment Good luck, hope it achieves FA star.Showmanship is the key 01:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment I would certainly want to support this, but I see that another editor who is trying to edit war is following me along to articles I work on and inserting links to stand alone years. Your article now contains these unnecesary links--links which I did not and have not touched in any way, but this other editor in his zeal failed to notice this. Sorry this is involved now. No need to say anything in return. I will view any result.
• Support. Since it is a good article, it should be a featured article. Chris 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lead is unencyclopedic in tone. Comment The lead has been greatly improved in tone and focus, but I'm concerned that it might not adequately summarize the entire article. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 18:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, for now. The lead needs some serious work. The Geology section seems completely out of place here. Some of the writing sounds like a Zagat review guide, what with all the random, short, out-of-context quotes used throughout the text. --DaveOinSF 05:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment2. From a cursory glance it is improved. I will read it in full a little later when I have time; just putting a note here that I haven't forgotten.--DaveOinSF 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Nice job. It meets my expectations now.--DaveOinSF 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. While many parts of the article are excellent, I find the very first paragraph unencyclopedic and written in the form of an argumentative essay rather than an encyclopedic article. Unencyclopedic paragraphs do not belong in FA's (or FACs, for the matter), let alone the lead. Fix (preferably remove) and I will support. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok. Even though I still find the first paragraph of the Longer-term effects section (which can be shortened to "long-term effects, BTW) still sounds a bit argumentative and the Geology sections seems out of place, I am willing to change my vote to support even though slight changes can still be made. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks. If the consensus is that the Geology section still doesn't seem to fit, it can easily be removed, since that daughter article has been created. NorCalHistory 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. It looks very good for the most part, and is certainly well-referenced. I feel that it is very, very close to FA quality. The parts I'm most concerned about are the lead, and a few other short sections of the text that have the feel of a popular book, rather than an encyclopedia. As noted above, the Geology section is mostly background information, and should probably be moved to its own article with only a brief summary left in the Gold Rush article itself. One addition to the article might be a little on the mythology of the Gold Rush (see, for example, the Levi Strauss & Co. article). ^BlankVerse 08:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Addressed Please see changes. NorCalHistory 17:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I offered some guidance when this article was in peer review. Since then it has improved to become impressively referenced and comprehensive. Its only shortcoming is the need for a copyedit to eliminate a few civic-boosterism phrases. I may provide that copyedit if my time allows. Those turns of phrase are not entirely unmerited: prior to this era California had been an isolated region of little importance; if it were an independent country today it would have the world's sixth largest economy. I don't think a few minor inconsistencies in tone constitute reason to oppose. All of the underlying FA requirements have been satisfied. Durova^Charge! 17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment This article needs a good map of the Gold Rush area during the Gold Rush era; I added one citation needed tag to the article (on 300,000 arrivals); all wikilinks need be checked to see they are pointing to the desired article; Placerville points to a disambiguation page, for example. Hmains 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • A map is an excellent suggestion, and the requested cite will be supplied shortly - thanks for catching that link (which has been fixed)! NorCalHistory 18:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I contributed to the peer review, and have followed the article and made minor tweaks and suggestions since then. While some improvements can still be made per suggestions above, I believe the fundamentals are in place. Over time, I'd like to see the article grow in the areas of history, immigrants such as the Chinese, and effects, and a daughter article on Forty-Niners created and correctly disambiguated. I agree that a map is a much-needed addition, and it should highlight the site of original gold discovery, as well as Route 49. Sandy (Talk) 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. We don't blithely write "in 1848, retrieved 273 pounds (124 kg) of gold in a few months"; we aren't Encyclopedia Britannica. What in the world is the italics supposed to signify, anyway? Why are these 273 pounds equal to 124 kilograms, rather than 102 kilograms? Don't use any pounds at all without explicitly identifying them, after you have made damn sure you know what they are. Does the original source of this statement identify its pounds, either in the place this came from or generally in the introduction? Does that source include the kilograms, or did some Wikipedia editor add that? Does it indicate its source for the numbr, so you can track that down? Is the specific number "273" in that source? Gene Nygaard 09:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

. on Page 230: "... in gold; others from a nearby tributary, $12,000 ON THE FEATHER RIVER six miners with fifty Indian workers took out 273 pounds of gold AT SINCLAIR's RANCH Sutter's neighbor, ..."--Paul 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: Gene - I hope the following answers your concerns;

(a) Yes, the figure of 273 pounds is given in the source cited.

(b) When I use any of the standard conversion websites (like this one), they confirm that the metric equivalent of 273 pounds is 124 kilograms.

(c) Italics are used for the word pounds here because all prior references to gold are in ounces. The italics assist the reader to see that a different unit of measurement is being used here.

Do these respond to your concerns? NorCalHistory 18:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 1 kg = 2.2 lbs; Ergo, 273 lbs * (1 kg/2.2 lbs) = 124 kg. --DaveOinSF 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your conversion is incorrect because you are converting from avoirdupois pounds to kilograms, rather than from troy pounds. The correct figure in kilograms is 102. Andrew Levine 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Judging that the secondary sources cited are ambiguous whether it is avoirdupois pounds or troy pounds, perhaps the best thing would be not to include a metric equivalent in the main text, but to footnote the metric equivalent of both troy and avoirdupois pounds, with an explanation.NorCalHistory 00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response There's no possibility of ambiguity because gold is always measured in troy pounds and never avoirdupois. Andrew Levine 00:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Always? Get real, Andrew. Troy pounds are only rarely used any more. Why in the world do you suppose I mentioned Encyclopædia Britannica? Every time they mention pounds with respect to gold, they are avoirdupois pounds, though usually not identified as such. Gene Nygaard 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rarely used anymore?" Is that why the New York Mercantile Exchange still denominates gold and silver prices in troy ounces? Andrew Levine 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to NorCalHistory (and DaveOinSF). Respond to my concerns? Most definitely not--it amplifies my concerns. You even seem oblivious to the fact that the troy ounces used for gold are different from avoirdupois ounces, in addition to being unaware of the fact that there are twelve of those troy ounces in a troy pound of gold. That is different from the 16 of the smaller avoirdupois ounces that make up an avoirdupois pound, the one you converted it as. That makes the use of italics in the text doubly confusing.

Do you know how many of those troy ounces it takes to make up one avoirdupois pound, the type of pound for which 273 of them is 124 kg?

Answer: 14⁷⁄₁₂ ounces to the pound. Weirdness we ought to avoid at all costs. Like I said, we aren't Encyclopædia Britannica.

One of the biggest problems, of course, is that troy pounds were more commonly used back in 1848, the time for which this number is quoted. But on the other hand, the number comes from a book written in the 1990s, a time when a whole lot of people are so innumerate as to be totally oblivious to the fact that troy pounds exist, and very often happy to use the comfortable-sounding old word ounces without even having an inkling that the ounces still used in much of the world's gold, platinum, and silver trade are different than the ounces some of us still use for meat or sugar or a baby's birth weight, and different yet again from the ounces we use for beer or soft drinks.

Back in 1848, it was still 30 years before the British would outlaw the troy pound, in the Weights and Measures Act of 1848. Yet, in one of the ultimate illogicalities and weirdnesses in the world of measurement, the UK today, 128 years later in the 21st century, has a specific exemption written into its metrication laws for continued use of troy ounces, even though the pound from which it was derived (and its pennyweight subdivision) were thrown out back in the 19th century.

Of course, in 1948 the troy pound (373.24 grams) remained the primary standard for United States weights. A specific artifact known as the "Troy Pound of the Mint" was the primary standards for all U.S. weights; even the best quality avoirdupois pound standards maintained by the government were secondary standards. That is a situation which had prevailed in England as well since back in the time of Henry VIII, when the independent standards for an avoirdupois ounce, whose independent standard before then had been measured to be about 7002 troy grains, was redefined as exactly 7000 troy grains.

It was 45 years after 1848 that the United States abandoned all independent primary standards for pounds, and redefined the avoirdupois pound as 0.4535924277 kilogram, and another 66 years after that before current world-wide definition of the avoirdupois pound as a slightly different value of 0.45359237 kg was adopted. That value was adopted in part because it is divisible by 7, making the troy grain's representation in metric units a terminating fraction, exactly 64.79891 mg. A troy pound is 480 of those grains, compared to only 437½ of those troy grains in an avoirdupois ounce. Gene Nygaard 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The United States never did outlaw the troy pound. But it isn't used much any more, rather people usually use thousands and millions of troy ounces. Once in a while you see troy pounds used, as in some documentary last year about salvage operations on some old Spanish shipwreck in the Carribean. Gene Nygaard 06:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

NYMEX still denominates gold and silver futures in troy pounds and ounces (and not in avoirdupois). The USGS says that "The basic unit of weight used in dealing with gold is the troy ounce." [1] I have never seen avoirdupois as the basic unit for gold (though I often see a measure of gold listed primarily by its troy weight, followed by what its equivalent in avoirdupois would be). Show me some of these places where gold in the present day is primarily measured in avoirdupois. Andrew Levine 07:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What's the point? The ounces in this article aren't what's being questioned, and there are quite a few of them. Remember, the Brits—and much of the Commonwealth, not sure whether Canada and Australia, big players in the metals field outlawed the pound, but I know that Australia also has a specific exemption to its metrication laws for the troy ounce, and Canada's metrication laws may be weak enough that no exemption for the troy ounce is necessary, but it is still used there—only outlawed the troy pound, not its ounce subdivision. Whenever Britannica (which isn't British and hasn't been for nearly a century) gives gold weights in ounces, they are troy ounces, too. Goo look for the weight of the sarcaphagus lid on King Tut's tomb. If you find it listed as 243 pounds (give or take a couple), those are avoirdupois pounds. You only very rarely see it as 290-odd pounds. Gene Nygaard 10:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Response Thanks to everyone who offered very useful information on this topic. I see that the article has been updated. Thanks again! NorCalHistory 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Continuing objection. Stating worth $x at a specific price is just like stating a mass, because ($y/oz troy)(z oz t) = $x, or z oz troy = $x/($y/oz troy). But stating "worth $x at 2006 prices" is even worse, because of the ambiguity of the price ranges over the year 2006, and we cannot even use a yearly average at some commodities market for that value because the year isn't done. Gene Nygaard 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Figuring out what 273 troy pounds of gold in 1850 would be worth today is an imprecise exercise, but it isn't going to be off by much. In 1850 a troy oz. of gold was worth $20 (c.f. the $20 "double eagle" gold piece which contained 1.125 troy oz. of 22k gold). So 273 troy lbs. * 12 troy oz. per lb. = 3,276 oz. or $65,520 in 1850 $. Various long-term inflation calculators are available and they indicate that this would currently be worth about $1.5 million. If you had 3,276 oz. of gold today, you could sell it on the London Exchange for about $1.8 million. So a conservative estimate of the value is "in excess of $1.5 million in 2006 dollars.--Paul 21:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we don't know that it was 3276 troy ounces. It might well have been in the neighborhood of 3980 troy ounces (273 avoirdupois pounds). And there is another possibility not yet mentioned here that is probably just as likely—that the reason the pounds were not identified in that book is that some author or editor was oblivious to the distinctions, and that some number originally 4368 troy ounces (or somewhere between 4360 and 4376) was divided by 16 to get these "pounds", of the fictional 16-troy-ounce variety. So that is quite a variation, with the larger amounts 34% higher than the smaller ones. Gene Nygaard 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the current wording "in excess of $1.5 million in 2005 dollars" is correct under any scenario that has been discussed.--Paul 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Gene - given that the only information we have is that "273 pounds" of gold were removed in the early Gold Rush by this one party of miners from this one location, would you be kind enough to give us an approximate modern-day dollar valuation of that amount, as you see best? Understanding that we need only an approximation to give modern readers a sense of scale (and do not need precision), you can describe your methodology and include whatever caveats you think are appropriate in a footnote (for example, "worth approximately $1.5 - $2 million in Dec. 2006 values"). Your educated assistance on this point would be appreciated! NorCalHistory 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This particular detail seems unecessary to the quality of the article. I have further rewritten to make it even more non-specific. If there are other instances where precision seems to be detracting from the sense of scale, it might be best to just rewrite them; you can also bring them to my attention and I will rewrite them.--DaveOinSF 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, I noticed a few places which lacked sources, for which I placed a {{cn}} next to them. In addition, the lede seems a bit awkward looking. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • ResponseBe glad to supply the sources. Regarding the "awkward" comment - do mean visually? That is typically a function of a reader's monitor size/resolution. Could you provide a bit more detail, and is that visual a reason for your present opinion? NorCalHistory 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Fixed Each "citation needed" has been addressed, and some additional material added to the lead. Do these changes meet your concerns? NorCalHistory 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Factually, it looks good. Support, now. What I was referring to before was the placement of the images. Might it be better to start with the larger image and have the history or California template below it? Hurricanehink (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree - the History template should be secondary to the actual article image. Sandy (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The lead really needs to be fixed. The lead is more of a history than a brief summary. When this is fixed, I will give it my support.-Hairchrm 03:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Thank you for your observation, I did make a change in the lead. I am trying to understand your observation a little more clearly. Wikipedia:Lead section suggests that the lead should "stand on its own as a concise version of the article." This article describes a historical event. A "concise version" of a description of a historical event may very well read like a history - it's not clear to me that result is to be avoided. In general, major points in the article should be summarized in the lead. As I read the article and the lead, major points in the article appear to be summarized in the lead. I would be interested if you would be kind enough to provide a bit more information; for example, is there is a major item in the article that you feel is not adequately summarized in the lead? If so, please suggest that missing information, and perhaps an editor will be able to include it. Thank you again, and I look forward to hearing more information. NorCalHistory 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Dien Bien Phu

This is a second nomination (Old nom). The previous comments were mostly minor, and I think they've been addressed now. Raul654 21:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment per WP:MSH, section headings should not have wikilinks, and words should not be capitalized unless it is the first word of the heading or is a proper noun. AZ _t 22:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I fixed the wikilinked section header (and put it into the paragraph itself), but I fail to see any capitalized words that shouldn't be. Raul654 22:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I found a few. I think they're all good now. —Kevin 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is pretty good, but it needs some work to reach FA status. Some suggestions:
  • The first half is very lightly cited.
  • Some of the claims in the article are contridictory. For instance it is stated that VM AAA batteries "made it prohibitively costly for the French to bring in reinforcements", yet the French did manage to bring considerable reinforcements into DBP, including several complete battalions (albeit at a serious cost on transport aircraft). Similarly it is stated that "The Viet Minh elite 148th Independent Infantry Regiment, headquartered at Dien Bien Phu, reacted "instantly and effectively"; however, three of their four battalions were absent that day". If the 148th Regt was so weak at DBP how could it be effective?
    • The 'instantly and effectively' is quoted verbatim from Davidson. I don't believe it's contradictory - they were understrength, but the people who were there fought effectively. As to the comments regarding the airdrops, I agree that may need clarification. Raul654 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should also add how many battalions of the regiment reacted "instantly and effectively". Wandalstouring 20:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• • The section on the American involvement in the battle should be expanded. It should also cover the United States considerations of intervening directly in greater detail - the US also seriously considered conventional raids at DBP. --Nick Dowling 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree; I mentioned something Fall discusses on pages 306-307, about several American and British leaders considering the possibility of lending atomic weapons. — Deckiller 06:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • This section has now been largly expanded. Raul654 20:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. In order to be encyclopaedic, the article should not look like the summary of a single reference. We expect more variable sources from a featured article, especially when the topic is potentially contentious. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I own Hell in a Very Small Place, so I can add some page citations to combo-cite. — Deckiller 05:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The article now contains many more citations to Roy and Fall. Does this address your objection? Raul654 07:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It's OK now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. nice. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, a very interesting article, very well written. Feature it! FrummerThanThou 04:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very detailed and interesting article on a little known subject. PHG 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support after copyediting the article on the previous nomination and helping Raul refernece on this one, I'm safe to say this article is yet another one of Wikipedia's outstanding History selections. — Deckiller 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC) (Sorry, I forgot that I didn't get around to copyediting this in the old nomination; I just added sources)

• Oppose. Please clean up the references section. Books should have a publication date, web references should be expanded to include the name of the site and the last access date. There are many one and two-sentence paragraphs, resulting in choppy prose. There are also statements that should be cited (for example, "The garrison constituted roughly a tenth of the total French manpower in Indochina.") Sandy (Talk) 00:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the paragraphs are an issue, but then again, I've always stongly disagreed with the "stubby paragraph" arguement. I cited what I could from the one book I had, so Raul might be on his own for the rest. As for the reference issues, again, I couldn't help there, since all I know is the Bernard Fall book. — Deckiller 00:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I've added dates for all the books and switched the website references over to the cite web template with the access date. The smaller paragraphs, located primarily towards the beginning of the article, have been merged together by Deckiller and myself. I've added a reference for the 'tenth of manpower' statement, but I don't see anything else that should be cited that isn't. I think that addresses Sandy's concerns. Raul654 01:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Support (providing Tony's points are addressed - how's that for circular reasoning? :-) My concerns are addressed. Sandy (Talk) 02:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, providing Sandy's points are addressed, and the issues below are fixed. (These are only writing glitches that I found on a quick read-through; there may be more.) Generally, it's well written.
• "a colleague whom he trusted"—better "a trusted colleague".
• To be picky, this is ungrammatical: "would require operating his army far from its home base". Better: "would require his army to operate far from its home base".
• "launched a massive artillery barrage against the surprised French"—better as "a massive surprise artillery barrage".
• "unbeknowenst" (like "whilst" and "amongst"), should go into the bin of forced formality. Just remove the last two characters.
• "and had practiced assaulting it used models." ??
• "However, the Viet Minh ..." Stubby para.
• "While the fighting was going on ..." Too informal. "During the fighting".
• "on the night of the 14-15 and the 16-17"—Are these dates? Format correctly, with en dashes and "th"; remove the two "the"s.
• "4 155mm howitzers and mortars"—Confusing and unacceptable. Spell out "4". Tony 01:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I have fixed all the problems Tony has identified. Raul654 01:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment article has a redlink to an ethnic group in Vietnam: T'ais: "Anne-Marie was defended by T'ais". This group is not listed in the article List of ethnic groups in Vietnam. Perhaps someone could reconcile these facts. Thanks Hmains 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The defect is in the list article. See this for a description of the T'ais. Raul654 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I take it back. The list has a link to Thai people, which gives T'ai as an acceptable alternate spelling (I have now made this a redirect). Raul654 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not sure this is the answer. The 'Thai people' article does not show many Thais living in Vietnam. I think the www link is talking about a different group, truly named "T'ai", who are in Vietnam. It might be the Tay people who are being discussed, the largest minority group in Vietnam--and who seem to live in the correct area. Sorry, I do not have reference material at my disposal to help out. Hmains 02:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Tai peoples is the correct article. It includes links to Black Tai and White Tai, which are both mentioned in the link above. Raul654 02:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • comment Article has the following sentence: 'generals Gilles and Dechaux (the ground and air commanders for CASTOR'.) It would be nice is the full names of the two generals could be found and included. These names are only referenced this once in the article. Thanks Hmains 01:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Good point. I've added it to the article (they're both named Jean) Raul654 01:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• support a good useful article. Hmains 03:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment overall a very good article but some issues could be adressed Mieciu K 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • how did the French forces took care of their wounded, and how many of them were evacuated?
  • did the French use helicopters or attempted night-time ressuply (to avoid Vietnamese AA fire)?
  • how well were the Vietnamese units armed in small arms like submachine guns and machine guns compared to the French forces, and how well were they supplid in ammunition?
  • did the Vietnamese use human wave tactics?
    • The answer to most of your questions is no. The French doctors and surgeons tried very hard to treat the wounded (Roy 138 describes Dr. Grauwin, the French surgeon, as a man of "considerable virtuosity") but the field hospital they used wasn't much more than a hole in the ground - one which the Moroccan workers had to dig the walls out of every night in order to expand it, to accommodate the ever increasing numbers of wounded. As far as evacuation - the airfield became unusable not too long after the battle began. After that, as the article says, supplies and reinforcements had to be parachuted in (a one-way trip to be sure). A helicopter rescue - especially in the extremely primitive 1950s helicopters - would have been a suicide operation. Helicopters tend to be large, slow-moving , and easy to knock out. A night time resupply would only have made the problem of inaccurate supply drops far worse.
    • Most of the ammunition used by the Vietnamese came from China. Given the logistics involved in transporting it through untamed jungle from China, the Viet Minh operations at Dien Bien Phu consumed virtually their entire supply capability. As far as their armament, I'm not entirely sure - none of the sources I've read explicitely state it (and it's somewhat beyond the scope of this article. It would more properly belong in an article about the Viet Minh). If I had to guess, they were probably using Chinese knockoff AK47s, although at the time there was a *LOT* of surplus WWII equipment from the British, Japanese, Chinese, and French in the area, so it wouldn't surprise me if the logistics were very diverse. Raul654 03:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    • As far as human wave attacks - no. The fighting was reminiscent of the trench warfare of WWI, but I wouldn't go so far as to describe it as having human waves. Raul654 03:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Fall describes the Viet Minh as swarming, but Hell in a Very Small Place is slightly French biased. — Deckiller 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White Deer Hole Creek

White Deer Hole Creek has had a peer review (which is here). The peer review found no major problems and the suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. The article follows most of the recommendations of WikiProject Rivers (although there is no list of tributaries, as the creek has only one named tributary). This article also follows the model of Larrys Creek, which is a similar stream and a featured article.

This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. White Deer Hole Creek is a relatively small, but quite interesting stream and I believe the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - A marvelous article! My only complaint would be the over-linking of unnecessary terms. Please look closely at each term linked and see if it adds anything to the understanding of the text. There are many common words linked that should be unlinked. In addition, some terms are linked a number of times in the text, they should only be linked once. Otherwise, congratulations on a great article! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, many details. I also agree with these things that could be fixed, but the article seems good enough to be featured. Hello32020 20:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks for your support and kind words. I did the final copyedits on a paper printout of the "printable version", which does not show wikilinks, so I will go through and remove duplicates links and try to remove those to unnecessary terms. Ruhrfisch 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Good job with further editing, removed comment. Hello32020 03:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I haven't had time to read it all yet, but can you shorten the very long caption on the introductory image? It makes a very busy visual presentation. Also, quotes don't need to be in italics (see WP:QUOTE), and can you fix your second footnote - There's an extra bracket, and an overly long linked article title. Sandy (Talk) 21:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks very much. I have shortened the caption and fixed the italicized quotations. I will fix the extra bracket in the second footnote. The full title of the book in print really is that long (it was published in 1892 - the web version does not give the full title). I really like using the full title, but will shorten it if that is what is required. I have started to remove duplicate wikilinks already, but to carefully do all of these things will take me a few hours at least. Ruhrfisch 22:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Sandy (Talk) 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support The article is terrific! It seems to cover all the bases and tell you everything there is know about White Deer Hole Creek. I grew up on the other side of the mountain from the creek and never even knew its name. This just goes to show you what can happen when someone takes in interest in a creek. Articles like this should go a long way to helping preserve the wild streams of Pennsylvania. Dincher 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent. Everyking 01:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks for all the support and praise. I believe I have now addressed all the issues raised above. I removed 51 duplicate or non-essential wikilinks from the article and fixed a couple of disambiguation links that had snuck in there along the way. I also fixed the extra bracket in the second footnote, but left my beloved very long title (for now at least). Ruhrfisch 02:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Its very comprehensive, I'm in favor. I like to see some of the more obscure articles being featured. RideABicycle 03:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support As a member of the rivers project myself (I think I am, anyway), this is everything we want our articles to be. Shame we're better at doing it with a very minor tributary of a major river than the major rivers themselves (Then again, geographically this was within the scope of what one editor could research and accomplish. Extraordinary work).

  I do have some suggestions — minor copy errors, some image suggestions, but IMO they are not and should not be fatal to featured status, which this article has achieved. I will instead share them on the talk page later. Daniel Case 18:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Response Thanks again for the support and praise, it is always nice to have one's work appreciated. I had a useful question on my talk page about the Name section which I copied to the the article's talk page. I would be glad to try and respond to other questions or suggestions here or there. FYI, my eventual plan is to get all six major creeks in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania (plus one or two of Pine Creek's tributaries) up to FA status, then work on the West Branch Susquehanna River. I started with Larrys Creek because it is small and all in one county, then moved to White Deer Hole Creek as it is also small. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch 18:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Beautifully written article. I'm amazed that there is so much interesting to write on a previously unknown to me tributary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. But I would still like to see the word 'watershed' linked to whatever is its proper use from the watershed disambiguation page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks for the support and praise. I have re-linked the first "watershed" to drainage basin. There is also a link to this in the infobox (from "basin"), so I had removed the duplicate link earlier in this FAC, as requested above. Ruhrfisch 12:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Object—1a. Here are examples from the lead that indicate that the whole article needs surgery.

• • Remove "located" from the opening sentence: it's redundant. People do this all the time, and I'm unsure why.
  • Why are "forest" and "agriculture" blued out? We do speak English. But wait, there are more. This is turning into a dictionary. Please delink these nuisance blueings.
  • The western part of the creek is in the Tiadaghton State Forest and has very high water quality." Two ideas that sit uncomfortably in the same sentence. Try a semicolon with some kind of causal factor? Or recast.
  • "The watershed has opportunities for canoeing"—The watershed goes canoeing?
  • "small scale lumbering"—What's "scale lumbering"? Hyphenate "small-scale".
  • "In the Second World War a TNT plant was built in the watershed, which later became a federal prison." Why be vague when you could easily google for the year it became a prison ...?
  • "In the 21st century, most development is in the eastern end,"—"has been"? Are you referring to development since 2000? Can a more precise time span be used than a whole century? Why not just remove the opening phrase? Recast to get rid of the hated "located"? "Most development has been in the eastern end [?particularly since ???], comprising two unincorporated villages, a hamlet, and most of the farms (primarily Amish)." Tony 02:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Response Thanks for your constructive criticisms. I will do my best to clean things up, but it will take me some time (I need to get some sleep soon). I will print it out again and get a fresh red pen. Ruhrfisch 04:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

      I have now edited just the lead to hopefully address the points you raised. The starting date for the prison was given in the article. I have reread your suggestions for meeting 1a and the criterion itself. Neither mentions the number of blue links (that I could see) - could you please direct me to the policy on this? I will work on the rest of the article, but hope the lead is now satisfactory. Thanks again and good night, Ruhrfisch 05:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that Tony's concerns are more about wikilinking common terms like pond, right bank and left bank, paths, bunkers, etc. See Wikipedia:Only make links relevant to the context Gzkn 10:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much - I had thought right and left bank OK to link to in an article on a stream, but will work on this and Tony's other points. I appreciate all the feedback and help, Ruhrfisch 15:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Update and Questions I have removed all wikilinks to common words except for the names of plants, animals, fish, and birds. If you think I should delink these I will, but at least some are useful links i.e. hemlock in PA is really tsuga. Please let me know what to do. There are a few duplicate wikilinks left, all in the infobox first then put back in by other editors at their first occurrence in the text (Clinton and Union Counties, Pennsylvania, perhaps some townships). If you want, I will remove them from the infobox and leave them in the text. Again please tell me what to do. Finally, I have removed 1 kb from the article in redundancies and have hopefully cleared up any remaining trouble spots. I will ask some other editors to look this over for copyediting, but please, if you are better at this than I, let me know of problems and I will do my best to resolve them. Thanks and I look forward to any feedback on these edits, Ruhrfisch 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you overdid the delinking a bit. If we insist on referencing even the most innocuous assertions of fact (and I remember Uncle G pointing out somewhere that even things like, say, a well-known foreign capital cannot be presumed to be commonly known, we ought to allow more linking than WP:CONTEXT (a page which admits it's in constant conflict with WP:BTW) would seem to suggest, at least as interpreted by Tony. "Unincorporated" should definitely be linked in this context IMO.

And I would add, too, that he should have been more civil in his phrasing. If you're going to brashly assert "the whole article needs surgery", cite examples from the whole article, not just the intro. When I object to an FAC without reading the whole thing through, I usually try to say as much (nor do I consider mildly troublesome prose in the intro to merit a blunt "Object". Better to just say you have concerns you want to address. Daniel Case 02:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

To elaborate on this a bit, why delink all the outdoor sports in the intro? They're certainly context-relevant.

Also consider that people (wikipedians or not) don't always click on links because they don't understand something and need further explanation. They might have an interest in the subject and want to see what the actual article looks like. Maybe, just maybe, that will convince them to become active editors. Especially if this article makes it to the main page, as I expect it to someday. Daniel Case 02:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Response Thanks very much, I will add back in the sports and unincorporated wikilinks. If other editors want them out, please say so. I have used wikilinks as a way of explaining more if a reader is interested. I know a lot about Ohio, where villages are incorporated municipalities (population under 5000), and Pennsylvania, where they are unincorporated and part of townships (which are municipalities), so I always try to make it clear what the PA situation is and think the wikilinks help clarify this. I similarly had "white" (for the deer) in the Farley quote linked to albino. I just want to have the best article possible and help make Wikipedia better and appreciate all help in reaching this goal. Ruhrfisch 03:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I used to live in Ohio, too, and like NY where I live now, there are just three types of municipalities: cities, villages and towns (townships in Ohio). But when I saw "Village", I thought, aren't small communities in PA called boroughs? The link does help. Daniel Case 05:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Villages in PA are marked with a sign by the Pennsylvania Dept of Transportation (i.e. "Village of Elimsport"), but even smaller communities (i.e. Spring Garden) are not, so I called Spring Garden a hamlet. Ruhrfisch 13:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Response Your points about the wikilinks are very valid in my opinion. It doesn't hurt to wikilink turkey (just as an example) even though most people reading the article probably already know what a turkey is. It seems to me that at least part of the purpose for wikilinks is to provide more information, not just a definition. Tony's comments seemed to be pretty harsh and would have set me off.Dincher 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aldol reaction

I came across this article during random travels through the encyclopedia. The importance of this carbon-carbon bond formation reaction can hardly be overstated. All the important mechanisms and stereochemical models are mentioned; it had an external peer review a while back (see Talk:Aldol_reaction#Nature_errors_to_correct for that), and it is adequately referenced. Everybody please weigh in! Dr Zak 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment and minor object (as of now): more minor issues first: Preferably, the footnotes can be converted to the cite.php method described on WP:WIAFA and WP:FN. Also, the See also comes before References (WP:LAYOUT). Also note that there should be no spaces between punctuation marks and footnotes (ex. :[1] instead of : [1]).
• It would be very helpful to add a section which explains the entire topic in laymen's terms. Honestly, I can barely follow the first paragraph in the WP:LEAD (which, by the way, is too long according to WP:LEAD)

Not sure if anything can be done about that at all. This reaction is bread-and-butter for any chemist, but how do you begin to explain what carbonyl compound means to a layman? Dr Zak 04:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also suggest a copyedit. I'm not too familiar with the terminology, so I'm not absolutively positive that the following are wrong:
  • If strong bases such as LDA are used, the enolate may be produced separately before the reaction, then an aldehyde slowly added at low temperature to produce the aldol product. Just read it out loud. Try rephrasing the last part of the sentence.
  • or ketones can also be deprotonate to deprotonated.

Done. Dr Zak 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Not about copyediting, but I picked this up while reading: why is another molecule italicized? At first glance it looks like terminology.

This is because acid has a dual function: to catalyze enol formation, and to activate the carbonyl group of an aldehyde towards attack by the enol present in the equilibrium. Dr Zak 03:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Also not about copyediting (wow, I'm easily distracted), but try laying Image:Enol aldol mechanism.png out better.

Can you explain how? I really like the layout of this - but then I drew it! I put in a lot of thought planning the layout to make it as clear as is possible. Did you want color added to the structures? If not, can you suggest a specific change to make it better? Walkerma 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not the image itself, I meant the layout of the image in the article (for example, see [2]). AZ _t 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Still looks fine to me! Maybe it's different browsers. If it's just a layout issue - so can you fix it so it looks OK to you? Would centering it solve the problem? Walkerma 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Otherwise, the mechanism can be regarded as the same. I plodded through the paragraph with this sentence, and I can't seem to understand what it is saying.

This is about different bases (hydroxide ion vs stronger bases). Agreed, that sentence is superfluous. Dr Zak

• • Enolization may be effected using a strong base ("hard conditions") or using a Lewis acid and a weak base ("soft conditions"): affected, right?

We are discussing what causes enolate formation, not what influences it, so "effected" is the right word. Dr Zak 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"Effected" means to "bring about". It means, literally, "to have that effect". It is not the same as "affected". The word is being used in a precise and scientific manner. --Amandajm 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Extensive studies have been performed on the formation of enolates under many different conditions. See Tony1's guide- here, we can eliminate many as redundant since we already know that extensive research was performed.
  • Despite the cost and being limited to syn adducts Un-parallel.

Reworded. Dr Zak 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • stereoarrays: syn selective: [30] and anti selective: Three colons in a row? 2 can go.
  • The methods described allow the synthesis of extensive polyketide stereoarrays to be assembled. Allow the synthesis to be assembled? AZ _t 01:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-worded. Dr Zak 15:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Two of the references 23 and 25 are the same ! And 12 and 17 are the same.--Stone 10:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Dr Zak 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I rarely do this, but I've decided to change my vote to an object. Features articles on complicated science topics do indeed need a simpler section for those who have had less experience w/ science. Ex. see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Photosynthetic reaction centre (note that I was involved w/ the FAC, but I'm not trying to make a point). What would happen if this page went onto the Main page? I doubt that most people will be able to understand any part of it. At least, note where this reaction occurs (why is this reaction important to a layman?) and its significance.

Also, nice job rewriting the lead, but there are a whole bunch of typos in there; also, there are some references from the first couple of sections to the lead which no longer are applicable (ex: acidic or basic conditions, as shown above). AZ _t 01:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead section is as uncomplicated as possible already. Any simpler, and it will have to say "the aldol reaction is important in chemistry". Frankly, I'm not sure the reaction *is* important to a layman, despite its role in biochemistry, or industry, or whatever. Does the layman care about the Battle of Austerlitz? Probably most people don't. I don't think it's the purpose of featured articles to incite the interest of the general public. Presumably the people who are interested will at least have a little background, and will understand some of what's written. From reading the criteria, it seems like you need it to be "well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable", with a good lead section, hierarchical setup, table of contents, images, and references. Now, I certainly think there's some copyediting that could be done, but it seems like the rest is there. I do take the point that the lead section may well be incomprehensible to a layman, but I can't see anything that could, in principle, be done about that. Maybe you could suggest some specific stuff which you feel could be done. I would add more about how it's used in industry or biochemistry, but frankly, I have no expertise in that area, so I really can't. Eugene Kwan 03:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This article isn't about an object or concept that one might encounter in everyday life. Looking through the list at WP:FA if this were promoted it would qualify as the article most remote from everyday experience. I would go so far to say that it is impossible for a layman to understand the article; one would need to know about carbonyl compounds and their reactivity first, something not encountered at all in daily life. However, the sheer bulk of literature on the subject testifies to its significance, and as far as I am qualified to judge it is comprehensive and well written - in fact it is more complete than the textbooks on the market. As Eugene said, if there are any specific low points we can address them, but your main complaint seems to be that only chemists would be expected to have an idea what this is about. That's the nature of the subject. Dr Zak 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be impossible for a layman to understand the article. However, there has to be some use for the reaction- it would hardly be comprehensive for an article on a reaction to only discuss the steps involved in the reaction. Perhaps add a paragraph somewhere about when this reaction is used. It is noted how certain methods are more industrially useful; we don't need to go in-depth about exactly how the reaction is specifically incorporated in industries, but we do need some examples of when this reaction is required. AZ _t 23:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the important feature of the aldol addition is that two stereocenters are set up in just one reaction step, and that the organic chemist's toolkit contains has means to set them up almost in any way that is called in the course of a multistep synthesis. You are right, this must go into the introduction, and perhaps we also need a landmark synthesis where aldol chemistry was used in the crucial steps. (I don't have time to hit the library before Monday, though!) Industrial applications - not sure that they are important - pentaerythritol and a couple of related compounds are so prepared, but the wide scope offered for synthesis of stereogenic centers is what gives this reaction its importance in today's chemistry. Dr Zak 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose when one asks "why is such and such a topic important?", one should also be asking "important to whom?". Now perhaps if you're an industrial magnate, the most interesting part of the aldol reaction is its use in industry, but if you're a chemist, it's cool because it's such a powerful reaction. Evans and many others have studied this chemistry in so much detail that polyketide synthesis has moved from "impossible" to "challenging", and now, "routine". Certainly, the cutting edge polyketides people are working on now aren't exactly "routine", but the point is that our understanding of this reaction is a big advance. Now, if I see an alkyl center next to an oxygenated center, chances are excellent that there's already methodology to make that stereoarray. If you were a chemist 50 years ago, it would have been a lot more difficult, if not impossible. Eugene Kwan 04:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the lead a bit, per the suggestions above. Also, are the "C-alpha" and "C-beta" markings necessary? Sorry, Dr. Zak, I was editing at the same time you were, and I felt your statement was best included where I had it...I'm open to suggestions. Eugene Kwan 05:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the scheme you mean? Not sure, the idea was to make the nomenclature immediately obvious to the lay reader without anyone having to go to alpha carbon. I'd leave the stars in, though, to point out the stereocenters. As for the lead I would put the definition in the first paragraph, reaction partners in the second, and importance and synthetic applications in the third paragraph. There's some redundancy there right now. Dr Zak 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Er...I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. But I'm leaving in the redundancy for now, and maybe others can take a look, and sort it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E kwan (talk • contribs).

I've rearranged the introduction a bit. Dr Zak 20:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone...I contributed the majority of the material on the page, and I've just added some new stuff. What is the current feeling about the article? Eugene Kwan 05:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Support with comments.

• Line diagrams are best displayed in SVG format, you have a mix of PNGs and GIFs.

*You need to explain the Ireland model in text.

• • Has been addressed

*All the references past the Crimmins thiazoldinethione reference need formatting to the same reference format as the earlier references.

• • Has been addressed
• More information on uses in industry would give this article more balance. TimVickers 23:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know anything about these graphics format. I drew everything in Chemdraw...perhaps I could re-export them? I agree with the next two points. The fourth point: as a graduate student in the Evans group, I'm afraid I don't know much about industrial uses...perhaps someone else can add something. Eugene Kwan 00:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support, the chemistry is very advanced and insofar as I am qualified to judge very accurate, the references have been updates nicely to wiki standards, the intro is aimed for non-technical readers as it should be. My only concern is the size (already 35KB): some segments could possibly be spinned of to separate articles for example two named reactions Mukaiyama aldol addition and the Hajos-Parrish-Eder-Sauer-Wiechert reaction and the Evans ligand. What remains unclear is the use of syn and anti in the text, it is used in a different way than syn addition would expect. Regarding the images: I prefer to have the images in png (rescalable!) and not gif, I do not see any advantages to svg though V8rik 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As for the nomenclature to describe the relative stereochemistry at α- and β-carbons, Evans uses syn and anti in his papers. This isn't the same as a syn- or anti-addition, of course, and in older papers one sees erythro and threo from carbohydrate chemistry. Since the main author is from the Evans group I'd say to let him use what he's familiar with. Dr Zak 23:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, thanks for the support. I think I've done as much as I can. On my computer, the graphics look nice, and it would take a lot of effort to convert everything to something else, which, IMO, would look the same. I'll leave it in your hands. Eugene Kwan 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The image policy is explained here. Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload PNG would probably be easy enough, since that doesn't require a program that can rasterise the images. TimVickers 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with two points that V8rik has made above. The article is long and segments can be put in different articles. Additionally, the images as PNGs are just fine. There is no advantage to using SVG for chemical schemes. In fact, I would say there are plenty of problems. But I digress... The article should be a featured article. ~K 05:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: (Disclaimer: I was a significant contributor to this article). I've given several talks on Wikipedia and I've always used Eugene's section on the Evans aldol as an example of what I think is excellent quality material on Wikipedia. The more advanced material is better and more up to date than you will find in many textbooks! It's about time this page got the star it deserves - I think the recent editing/peer review has tweaked the article enough to bring it up to FA standards. I don't think you could rewrite the intro in more basic language. Regarding SVG, we have had problems with SVG files in organic chemistry articles, they have usually given lower image quality than PNG or GIF. Walkerma 05:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's great. I don't mind at all if you guys think it'd be better to cut it up into smaller articles. I'm not very adept at Wikipedia, though, so perhaps I can leave that to you? Also, is it worth my time to convert the many chemdraw files I have to PNG instead of gif? That'd take quite a while, but I'll do it if it's necessary. Eugene Kwan 06:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object with regrets. An article about the aldol reaqction should explain why β-protons are (relatively) acidic: without this information, a student chemist cannot understand the excellant chemistry which is described in the article. I would favour a split, taking some of the more intricate applications into seperaqte articles: this should be fairly easy, given the depth of coverage which this aritcle already gives them. There is obviously an FA in here, but it is not there yet. Physchim62 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I would disagree. This article is about a certain reaction of carbonyl compounds; the fact that carbonyl compounds are CH-acidic has its place in the article on carbonyl compounds. (Surprising to see that we haven't got an article on CH acidity yet! Dr Zak 16:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• • (rare edit conflict!) Valid points: I volunteer to do two tasks: reinforce the carbon acid article: why hydrocarbons can be acidic etc. and a table with pKa values and make sure the Aldol article links to this page in a prominent way. Also I will float the Mukaiyama aldol addition as a separate page. I will also try to update the DOI's in the references. I think the image issue is solved, no advantages for SVG. Only change gif to png when you have the time (not a must-be for FA status). Thanks Eugene for providing the explanation for syn/anti in the text, this issue is solved! a great help. V8rik 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think a detailed discussion of acidity belongs in this article, any more than a detailed discussion of how artists use paint belongs in an article about Monet. Eugene Kwan 16:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Physchim62, but I agree with Dr. Zak here, this is an article about a reaction that uses enolates. A detailed description of C-H acidity belongs in enolate, which should probably be split off from enol. Admittedly we have a little on the stereo/regio chemistry of enolate formation in this aldol article, but that is because it has great relevance in determining which aldol product is formed. If v8rik strengthens the carbon acid article, that should suffice. Walkerma 21:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• improved carbon acid article, added DOI's, Mukaiyama aldol addition now a separate header ready to float and explained a bit on dibutylboron triflate. Some bits in the enolate section should belong in enolates because enolates are used in more reactions than just Aldol. Even Evans' oxazolidinone chemistry is not unique to Aldol as it has other uses. Comment to AZ: FA perhaps too technical for main page (it should go for main page) but science portal also has FA V8rik 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. In the lead, can we have just a tiny glimmer of information for non- and semi-experts as to the significance of the topic in the wider world? It's about catering for WP's wider readership at least a little, and more importantly, selling science to the policy makers. Minus sign should not be a hyphen (–78 occurs twice). An en dash is OK (–). An en dash is required for "carbon–carbon", so you could pipe the link to the wrongly named article. "The Evans' acyl oxazolidinone method." Why the apostrophe? It probably needs a careful copy-edit to weed out little glitches, although it's not too badly written. Tony 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  To answer that question, the apostrophe is used for that sentence because the last name of David A. Evans ends with an S. The -78 thing seems to have been fixed already. How about the little mentioning of pharmaceuticals in the beginning, the stuff about polyketides? --HappyCamper 14:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Eugene had had a go at the introduction the other day, and he improved it much.[3] The article is very clear about the relevance of the reaction (emphasis mine): "Structural motifs derived from aldols are especially common in … natural products from which many pharmaceuticals are derived … . Extensive research on the aldol reaction has produced highly efficient methods … . The synthesis of many polyketides, once considered nearly impossible, can now be performed routinely on the laboratory scale, and is approaching economic viability on a larger scale in some cases … . In the aldol reaction two stereogenic centers … are set up in one single reaction step, making this reaction an attractive choice for the synthesis of complex molecules with many stereocenters. … Stereoselective synthesis is of considerable interest to the pharmaceutical industry, since the stereochemical configuration of drugs can greatly impact their biological activity." A large amount of effort has been devoted to this reaction by organic chemists and the methods that are now available are incredibly powerful. Of course reading Wikipedia isn't the same as taking two or three years of chemistry at uni level, but all the relevant keywords are linked within Wikipedia, and the articles linked are of good quality. Dr Zak 15:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there supposed to be a red link for Mukaiyama? So what are our outstanding issues? Eugene Kwan 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• • there is not, took care of it V8rik 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article really has more detail than many textbooks and IMO is one of the best examples that Wikipedia has to offer in terms of comprehensive, well-referenced articles in the area of chemistry. The main thing I would add is some mention of the biological role of the aldol reaction, specifically with a link to aldolase. Also, a link to pentaerythritol wouldn't hurt, considering that it is a major industrial application, at least when measured in terms volume (253,000 tonnes in 1989 according to Kirk-Othmer). Itub 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • took care of it V8rik 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As much as I dislike Org. Chem. this is a fascinating article. Congratulations to the editors. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summary?

• As far as I am concerned all of the above reservations have been discussed and where appropiate taken care of, so our slate is clean. If somebody's considerations have been neglected please restate them here, this will help to keep the discussion focussed, thanks in advance V8rik 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Ground Forces

This article has been much improved and brought to A-class status, and is now ready for FAC consideration with numerous cites and photos. Self-nomination. Buckshot06 08:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Whether you read the official website of the subj?
  • The Russian name for subj is Сухопутные войска Российской Федерации, hence the English one must be something like Land Forces of the Russian Federation
  • The Russian Empire has Ground Forces and it was Russian Ground Forces too. See e.g. Heads_of_military_of_Imperial_Russia#Ministry of Land Forces Kmorozov 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • http://www.mil.ru/eng/1862/12068/12088/12220/index.shtml They are called "Russian Ground Force" on www.mil.ru. Jeltz talk 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
    • At [4] claimed that the history of the Russian Ground Forces begins in the age of Kievan Rus Kmorozov 12:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Some summarizing on army ranks and insignia? Currently the article isn't appallingly long, 45 KB total. --Brand спойт 12:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is an excellent article and would form a good model for all other articles on national militaries. In addition to describing the capabilities and roles of the Russian Ground Forces, this article also discusses the RGF's future and the cultural/structural issues which are impacting on it in a concise yet well referenced and powerful way. My only concerns are that the Ranks and insignia section should be either fleshed out or removed and the prose in the 'Mission' paragraph could be tightened a little bit (it reads like a translation, which I guess is what it is). --Nick Dowling 23:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nick Says it all

Flubeca 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support & Comment. Great Job. There is some missing information like who are the top Echelon Commanders of the Russian Army and some Information about Women and Ethnic Minorities in the Army. Just a suggestion. Mercenary2k 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Thanks for adding the stuff about women and the Top commanders in the Army. Dont worry if you didnt find any info on ethnic minorities in the army. I am pretty sure that Russian Army doesnt release these statistics because of the on going wars in Chechenya. My concerns have been addressed, so I fully support.

• Support The article is terrific with many various details and history of the Russian Ground Forces. I do agree it could be better, if some of the above suggestions were fulfilled, but it looks good enough to me. Hello32020 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Nominator's Comment I've made a few notes, as requested, on ranks, and tried to improve the Mission section, though further wordsmithing assistance would be welcome. Am in process of adding the Military district commanders to the table, and I've added a note on what little info there is on women in the Ground Forces. There is virtually no information available on ethnic minorities within the Ground Forces as far as I can see, but I'll keep looking. Thanks for your comments. Buckshot06 05:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kmorozov 08:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon

The old nom was very long and virtually unreadable. I'm starting this one over. Raul654 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support To repeat my position from the un-rebooted nom. --PresN 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, again. jaco♫plane 23:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Seems as good as the last time I reviewed it. Thunderbrand 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well written and well cited. The only issue I have is whether the quote at the end of the story section is necessary, but I don't see that as too big of a concern. Jay32183 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Easily the best game article on Wikipedia in my opion, an definitely one of the best ones I've read on the entire site. I may be a little partial due to the fact this is one of my favorite games, though, so it may be a little more intriguing to me there. guitarhero777777 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per un-rebooted nomination. Nat91 03:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Informative and comprehensive. In its current state, the article is excellent. Combination 20:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well written and well cited article. Acs4b 16:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Henri (2003)

As author of the article, I feel it complies to the featured article criteria, and would like to nominate it for featured article. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, looks good and seems comprehensive for a relatively minor storm. Everyking 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Another great entry. Mercenary2k 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one more from WikiProject Tropical cyclones!--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 20:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support, with a conflict of interest, as I copyedited the entire article a while ago. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. Not much to say. CrazyC83 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Article is well done, and is featured quality. Hello32020 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Weak support. Some suggestions for the lead:
• Tropical Storm Henri was a weak tropical storm that formed in the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season. I suggest removing both "weak" and "that".
• The flooding was described as a 1 in 500 year event. Described by who? When was the last such event? A very non-flowing sentence, I suggest removing it entirely.
• Also, some numbers remain unreferenced, such as damage tolls. Overall the article is well-written, well-structured, and well-referenced. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with the first one is that "that" is necessary in this case; "Tropical Storm Henri was a weak tropical storm formed in the 2003 Altantic hurricane season" lacks the relative pronoun needed to make the sentence grammatically correct. The 1/500 year event is a technical term, described nicely at 100-year flood; it is already linked from the Mid-Atlantic impact section, and the reference for the number indicates that the Delaware Geological Survey is the one who gave that estimate. I personally think it is better to leave extraneous details away from the lede and in the body of the article, but I'll try to weave the sentence in a little bit better. As for the damage total of $19.6M, it is a direct addition of the two numbers described in the impact section below ($16.1M for Delaware, and $3.5M for Pennsylvania), which do have references adjacent to them; so, we do not need a footnote there. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion of Tulagi (May 1942)

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II battle for FA consideration. Self-nomination with helpful polishing from other editors. Cla68 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another excellent article from Cla68; all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Rather very well-done, although I want to pick, after I go over the Sei Whale article once more. I would like a map of the Solomon Islands that pings its location on the scale of the eventual war in the Pacific, a map that just shows the islands and their relationship to Japan, Australia, Midway Atoll (ask User:Reisio, or User:Geo Swan, imo, if you don't do your own) early on in the article. First, or probably second, occurence of name "Solomon Islands" should be formal name at time (British Solomon Islands Protectorate?), "initiating in the critical" might be "initiating the critical" (or is that dialect), US battleship fleet" --> "Pacific Fleet" first time. KP Botany 17:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral: A quick comment, why are there three campaign boxes on the article? The invasion itself isn't on the last two. If we're going to start listing the grandfather campaigns, I can see a slippery slope developing (Telugi --> Solomon Islands --> Pacific 1942 --> Pacific War --> World War II). In my opinion, only direct parents and children should be used as campaign boxes. Oberiko 17:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, both of the latter two are parent boxes of the campaign (that is, the Solomon Islands campaign is linked to on them); I think it's become pretty conventional now to include, where available, up to three levels of campaignboxes.
    • Sub-engagements of the article topic (e.g. a campaignbox for a war on the war's article)
    • "Sibling" engagements of the article topic (e.g. a campaignbox listing a battle on the battle's article)
    • "Sibling" engagements of the broader campaign (e.g. a campaignbox listing a campaign on an article about a battle in that campaign, as here)
  • In other words, the campaignboxes place the battle within the immediate campaign as well as placing the immediate campaign within whatever broader sequence of events is present. (I doubt this will lead up to the slippery slope idea, actually; certainly, nobody's tried it so far. WWII battles are somewhat unusual in having a campaignbox scheme that's not purely a tree; for almost everything else, the current guideline and the available selection of campaignboxes would only allow a maximum of two campaignboxes on a single article.) Kirill Lokshin 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I also think the last general infobox is redundant. --Brand спойт 18:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That may be true; as I said, the WWII campaignboxes are rather more messily nested than most others. It's something that would best be fixed by cleaning up the campaignbox structure centrally. Kirill Lokshin 21:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Pacific War was, obviously, a large and complex conflict. That's one of the reasons why there are three campaignboxes in this particular article instead of just two. This battle was the first battle in the Solomon Islands campaign, which is why that campaign box is there. The second campaignbox, "Pacific campaigns 1941-42" exists to show the series of Japanese advances in the first year of the Pacific War, because the involved battles crossed several separate campaigns, but were part of Japan's single campaign to acquire and secure territory and resources to support and secure its empire, and this battle was one of those. The third box is the "parent" box for the Solomon Islands campaign. Sure, the campaignbox system for this particular conflict is somewhat messy, but so far it's the best attempt at organizing the complicated history of the war in the Pacific. Cla68 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The article has a fine linking mechanism: one back jump to Pacific War on the top of the conflict box and two back jumps to Pacific Ocean theater and South West Pacific theatre. So in my opinion there is no need to repeat, the parent box could be moved lower, to the reference section at least. --Brand спойт 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment very interesting article but the lead paragraph is way to long and detailed. Please see WP:LEAD. FrummerThanThou 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmm? The lead is three paragraphs, which is pretty standard for an article of this length; it's supposed to "be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", after all. Or did you mean something else? Kirill Lokshin 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't worry too much about it...see Frummer's comments to the next two FACs on this page... Gzkn 10:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well documented and written. Hmains 03:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written. Acs4b 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clement of Dunblane

Self-nom. I have confidence that the article is factual, neutral and concise, and that it is of FA quality. I have been urged, despite the article's young age, to put it up for nomination by another wiki user. I have given it several productive proof-reads. If there are still any issues with it, I believe they are only minor and can be (perhaps only) resolved here fairly quickly; it is for this reason that I am moving the article past the peer review stage, and nominating for Featured Article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A comprehensive, well illustrated account of a rather obscure subject. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Improved; can you ensure that the page ranges end with at least two digits—some do, some don't (e.g., 116–9 shoud be 116–19). It's not usual to double up and "support" your own nomination.—Needs a copy-edit.
  • Opening sentence: "Clement was one of the first of the new Dominican Order to enter Scotland, and was the first member of the Dominican Order in the British Isles to become a bishop, being chosen by 1233 to become bishop of the ailing diocese of Dunblane." Rather long and complex, and needs splitting in two, perhaps with a semicolon; two instances of "become" and of "bishop"; "being chosen" is grammatically awkward in this construction.

• • Fixed. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "Clement managed to obtained some grants for the bishopric." What does "some" add?

• • This sentence is in the introductory paragraph; such details are in the main text which it summarizes. Do you think it's necessary to place this kind of detail here? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "He was present with the king during his campaign in Argyll in 1249 and was at the king's side when he died during this campaign." "His" campaign refers to the king's, right? So use "his side".

• • Changed it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "In this period too Clement helped to"—I think commas on both sides of "too" are mandatory.

• • Never heard of that, but I went and got rid of the "too". Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "The latter source, however, is often highly unreliable, and cannot be fully trusted.[2] Therefore, Clement's Scottish birth and entry into the Order in 1221 cannot be entirely relied upon." It's the account of his birth and entry that is unreliable, surely. It's all too hedged this way and that, and repetitive, right through that para. Your historian "wrote", not "writes", if we know about it.

• • I changed the tense for you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• • "In the three or four years after his visit to the papacy, agreements were made with the various institutions who were drawing income from Clement's diocese; namely Coupar Angus Abbey, Lindores Abbey, Cambuskenneth Abbey, Arbroath Abbey, the nunnery of North Berwick and the Hospital of Brackley, Northamptonshire"—I think an em dash would be far better than a semicolon to precede this list.

    replaced with a dash for you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As you predicted above, there are minor problems: the whole text is peppered with them. Please don't just treat the examples I've cited here—find someone different to sift through the article carefully. A couple of hours' work, at least. Tony 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments. I implemented the things you suggested. I've given it another copyedit too. Since my brain doesn't have any problems with most of the things you listed, I think I'll have to request that someone else copyedit it too. If you could give it a once over yourself, I'd be most grateful. Medieval bishops are not exactly the kind of topic most people are falling over themselves to read about. :) But I will put in a request with User:Angusmclellan. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Although Angus may look over it again in the next 12 hours, the article has now been looked over by others and has had several more copyedits by myself, as you will see by this diff. I hope this has gone further to addressing the problems you raised. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

can you ensure that the page ranges end with at least two digits

Did it. Thanks for your help. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support - a well sourced article, scrolously done. Just one note: the last paragraph of the second section needs to be sourced, so that it may not be accused of WP:OR.--Aldux 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks. 'Tis now sourced. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support – An excellent, factual and balanced article, particularly well researched and sourced and crisply written.--Bill Reid | Talk 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object I dont like the idea of religious figures being supported though I am fine with articles on religions being supported. Also, check WP:LEAD, the lead paragraph is too long. FrummerThanThou 03:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Take the objection of the above user with a grain of salt, as he/she tagged Clement of Dunblane with {{LEAD}} 20 seconds after he/she finished commenting on another FAC. Leads me to believe the user didn't even read the article at all. Gzkn 04:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not going to. The lead blatantly isn't too long, and if she doesn't support religious figures, there's nothing I can do about it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 07:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I'll make the relevant changes where necessary, leave a message on my talk page! --SunStar Net^talk 16:22, 8 December 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 ([5] - 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)

  substantiation: Good research, comprehensive citations. According illustrations, in spite of some other comments here, I accept them. Julo 19:33, 29 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)

• May I suggest discussing the question of whether the article is good enough for FA rather than Colin Barker's political stance and the number of academics who like the article. There is no list of political ideologies, whose adherents aren't reliable, as far as I know. If the NPOV-rule were to be interpreted in the sense that the authors of any sources are not allowed to have a POV, then only works by completely apathetic people would be allowed. That is complete nonsense. Further, if Marxists aren't allowed to be cited, then capitalist democrats, e.g., should not be be considered reliable either IMHO. If you are going to object based on NPOV violations please state in which way you feel the article is POV mentioning examples for this POV. McCarthyanist purges are surely not in line with Wikipedia policy. On the other hand an academic peer review does not mean that an article is at FA level and cannot be criticized. Why don't you answer people when they find faults in the article, rather than continouisly repeating the fact that some academic liked it, Piotrus? I hope this discussion will get back on topic.--Carabinieri 00:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I believe I have addressed all objections - do correct me if there is something I missed.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No you did not. The article lacks encyclopedicity and neutrality as explained in my vote. Your keeping telling me that you addressed them or that my objections are of no merit or perpetual calls to restate them cannot help addressing the article's problems. --Irpen 18:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I addressed your objections by going over the article, trying to eliminate the problems you indicated. 14 support votes plus an academic reviewer agree that there are no longer viable concerns; you are of course free to disagree but I am afraid there is only so much that we could do other than delete the article to satisfy you, and that is not a community apparently wants to do. Feel free to take the article to WP:AfD at any time.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
        • This isn't a vote. Comments including nothing more than the the words support or oppose should be politely ignore. If someone finds that part of the article does not conform with the FA guidelines than that makes a difference even if it's only one person.--Carabinieri 21:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
          • When a user objects, s/he is expected to provide specific reasons why. For support, while it is nice, it is not obligatory - it is assummed that a user have read the article and found it confirming to the FA stadnard. See also 'Supporting and objecting'. As I wrote above, I believe we have addressed all objections, safe for Irpen's single claim that the article 'lacks encyclopedicity (sic!) and neutrality'. We have been discussing this since last round of voting, I have yet to find an editor that will agree with his reasoning - and we have found plenty who apparently disagree.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per Piotrus and Logologist. Visor 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. This nomination is a wonderful example of how voting along national lines may promote any POV mess to featured status. I see unsubstantiated votes in such borderline cases as abuse of WP:FAC for tendentious purposes. This problem needs to be fixed as soon and as promptly as possible. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also find it a wonderful example of how the article is opposed solely by (some, not all) editors from a particular country (or to be more specific, with connection to a particular country, i.e. that used to live or still live in Russia (Soviet Union in the past)). On the other hand, the article is supported by many editors who are not Polish, and others from that region. Case rested.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. As I said in the previous nomination - the article meets all the FA criteria, it's comprehensive and well-written. Jacek Kendysz 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

Old Archive
This is my second Self Nomination of this article (and needless to say support), and I think it is finally ready. The only problem in it's previous FAC was that it needed to be well written, which thanks to Deckiller and TKD, it is. It's a good article, and is a great example of this encyclopedia's best work, and deserves featured status.--Clyde Miller 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: A well researched and concise article. The previous prose issues seem to have been dealt with. - Tutmosis 17:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, though, as Clyde mentioned, I've done a fair amount of copyediting. — TKD::Talk 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per TKD. — Deckiller 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as before. JimmyBlackwing 19:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support It meets criteria, and there are tons of references. There just isn't much to it... Tinyboy21 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The game isn't really well known or well recognized, so there just isn't that much information on it. I'm sorry there isn't a better answer than that.--Clyde Miller 19:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. Most possible copyedits are just a matter of taste. Could use some more reference parameters, such as author and date. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I know that subject matter is not relevant to an FA - that any article can be an FA - but frankly, the material here seems really, really thin. This is a personal reaction, I acknowledge fully, but as I was reading "A unit can be ordered to scout, guard, act defensively, or act aggressively. Resources — food, wood, gold, and stone — are required in different combinations to build structures and armies. Throughout the game, citizens gather resources and deposit them in Town Center structures" I was going, uh-huh, ok so what. It may, perhaps, be possible to include content that rises above this kind of prosaic, dull walk-through of a humdrum video game, but this ain't it. Eusebeus 19:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose is invalid; "It must not be about a 'humdrum' video game" is not in the criteria. — Deckiller 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Glad to see we have such a diligent guardian of the validity of FA considerations. Many thanks for that nuanced reading of my objection. I never said "It must not be about a 'humdrum' video game"; what I said is that It may, perhaps, be possible to include content that rises above this kind of prosaic, dull walk-through of a humdrum video game, but this ain't it; to paraphrase: the content is slight as it is; this does not mean that better content cannot be derived, and content is the core part of FA. Eusebeus 19:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, the entire article as it currently is not just a "dull walkthrough of a humdrum video game"; that is merely one section. The article covers all aspects, including development, gameplay, story/background, reception, and so on. I'm sorry if the gameplay section appears dull to you, but it's important for a FA to be comprehensive. You can't really insert entertaining prose into a gameplay section without introducing redundancies and whatnot. In short, the article covers all aspects of the game based on what general information is available. — Deckiller 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • I find the content of the entire article to be wanting. Eusebeus 23:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • That isn't an actionable objection. Which criterion does it fail? JimmyBlackwing 02:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Game articles have to be written in order to be accessible to a non-gamer audience. Nearly every Good class or above RPG article has the same "characters move around on a field map with an overworld map too" and stuff about attacking, and it can sound a little dull. But it's part of fulfilling comprehensiveness and making it accessible. --Zeality 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Do simple years really need to be wikilinked? Gzkn 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Where are you referring to?--Clyde Miller 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 950 A.D. to 1900 A.D., which covers the first three ages: the Medieval, Gunpowder and Imperial ages. The other five civilizations roughly cover the years 1900 A.D. to 1950, occurs in the 1590s, and Empires was developed from 2002 to 2003...there may be others. Gzkn 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Removed. I'm sorry I didn't know that dates weren't supposed to be linked. Done
• Further Comments
  • The Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, but they are not playable in the game. and Although the Japanese are opponents in the game's campaign mode, they are never playable. Kind of repetitive, no?
    • Removed. Done
  • Kim Shi-min, Kwak Chae-u -> Wikilinks (caption and prose)?
    • Fixed the prose and I hope that red links are okay. Done
  • In an interview, Rick Goodman stated If the reader didn't read the infobox, they might not know who Rick Goodman is. Also the quote is pretty general and readers aren't told how his quote relates to the development of the game.
    • fixed up. Is this better? Done
  • Might want to link "PC Game World" and "Worthplaying" .
    • Hope red links are okay. Done
  • For criticism, GameSpot Not really a big fan of that transition...
    • Done Better?
  • The magazine found that the pathfinding algorithm often causes units to travel together in a disorganized mass and sometimes take more dangerous routes than necessary to reach locations, although explicitly constructed unit formations eliminated crowding and lessen friendly fire and interference with the routes of other units. Could this be broken up somehow? Or trimmed? Also, there's a weird change of tense ("eliminated").
    • Done
  • "... dumb man's Rise of Nations." ellipsis is probably unnecessary there. Gzkn 02:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Done
  • The article mentions Rise of Nations several times; I think a link should be added to the "See Also" section.
    • Done I added it to the see also, but I thought you don't add something to the see also if it is wikilinked. If someone can back me up on this, it should be removed.

Reply: I (and Deckiller) took care of the problems. Anything I did wrong or anything that still needs work?--Clyde Miller 03:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Those {{done}} templates are neat...I need to start using them. Regarding the red links: I assumed that they would have articles...darn :( Since they don't at the moment, perhaps an explanatory word/clause of what they are might be better instead of red links (are they web-only game reviewers, magazines?). Gzkn 03:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the transition to "In a negative review". Is that OK (I'm assuming it was a negative review)? Gzkn 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that transition works better. — Deckiller 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I found the {{done}} template on some peer review and I liked it. As to the red links, I could start a stub or add a segment to explain them once I get a chance.--Clyde Miller 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done I added a segment about the red links instead of making articles, because I don't feel like have an FAC and AFD at the same time. Anything else I missed or need to work on?--Clyde Miller 00:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This has come a long way since I first saw it as it was leading up to GAC, and especially with the changes made in this FAC, I whole-heartedly support. --PresN 19:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well cited, clearly explained, and interesting to read. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 18:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Replied. see above.--Clyde Miller 19:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure (I'm new around here). I just thought that you had compared it several times to Rise of Nations, so it should have a link for being a "comparably similar" game. AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 01:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well good enough for me. Stays unless someone finds some policy that says otherwise.--Clyde Miller 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"See also"s are actually discouraged in featured articles, because links should already have appeared in a relevant context elsewhere in the article (as you had originally thought). If the links can't reasonably be integrated into the rest of the text, then it raises the question of whether they're really all that relevant. Remember, FAs are about brilliant prose, so lists should be minimized. I'm also not sure why Age of Empires is in the See also section. If a source compared the two, then that should be mentioned in the article proper. Otherwise, it's not really clear to the reader why the comparison was made between these two games in particular. If the comparison were in the "Reception" section, it'd probably be tagged with {{fact}}, so a link in "See also" is a bad idea unless it's sourced. I'm being bold and removing the "See also" section. — TKD::Talk 02:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I learned something today. :-) | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

:: shrug :: Alright, I really never thought it was needed anyway.--Clyde Miller 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per work done in previous nomination. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support But can you add the cumulative Rottentomatoes / Game Rankings scores? And you might try to find some sales figures, but I know how impossible those can be to come by, so don't sweat it. --Zeality 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Gamerankings is citied in the article, and most of the reviews compilied in it are in the article also. Sales figures are impossible to come by with a game that is as little known as this. However, I will keep looking, and will try to find a place to add the compiled scores. I think this is the final response, since Empires has been promoted. --Clyde Miller 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Thorpe

Self-nomination - Well here goes. This is my first attempt at the FA process. I feel that this article which I wrote is a comprehensive account of Thorpe, and well sourced (166) and is NPOV. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think the lead should be 2-3 paras - possibly a bit long for the article. The language is concise and the article looks comprehensive. Certainly topical. cheers Cas Liber 09:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

After looking again, I should add that paras 2 and 3 of the intro sould be shorter and more summary-like. Also, I am not sure para 4 should be there. Cas Liber 09:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Changes enacted. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - looks nice to me. Yao Ziyuan 10:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Exceptional. Great job BL. michael ^talk 11:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment

::*Need a better picture of Ian Thorpe as his face is covered with water. ::*Lots of results of his performances are written in text instead of organized into a table. This makes it hard to visualize.I suggest you create a small table to show his performances. ::*There is only one picture of him. This article is quite wordy which is ok but it needs pictures to add a visual aesthetic element to it. ::*Ian Thorpe Also appeared on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I think it should be mentioned, and if possible get a picture of that. ::Other than that, this article is wonderfully cited and deserves to be FA if these things are addressed. Mercenary2k 16:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok Changes have been made so I support Mercenary2k 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The Leno thing has been included. I have found two pics on flickr, but one is poor. If you want I can split the medal tables so that there is one for each meet, instead of combined. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I think I've addressed these issues with some FU pics. Also, I have put in result tables for each of the major international meets. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object. I think it is doubtful that the images uploaded by WikiMax are correctly tagged. Can someone make a new effort to establish their provenance? Haukur 17:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - probably a pro copyvio from that range, can be replaced. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - has been replaced with free image and 5 fair use images with rationale. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Great! Haukur 09:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A good comprehensive article on the subject. However, it can be further improved:

• It needs more pictures to break up the monotony
• This article still needs a good copyedit for tone. Some of the sentences may be improved. For e.g.

Theoretically competing for a position on the Australian team for the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta, he finished 23rd in the 400 m freestyle and 36th in the 200 m backstroke. Theoretically???

In June, two months before the Pan Pacific Championships, Thorpe required an appendix operation, causing him to miss two weeks of training. Which year?

horpe was began 2002 with the Australian Championships in Brisbane in March syntax.

He also competed in the 100 m backstroke, an experimental event, coming second in a time of 55.74 s to earn himself a Commonwealth spot in the event - experimantal??

• The lead is good. What is in the article should be mentioned in lead and vice versa, which it does. However, IMO there is no need to provide inline citations in the lead. They can be given in the body of the article where appropriate.
• All red links should be either removed or stubs created for them.
• At 92kb, I think the article is a bit too long for a bio. Can it be trimmed?

Good luck - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Fixed syntax. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• and created some stubs. I'd rather not trim it if at all possible. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, that is not correct on the redlinks. Redlinks are there to encourage article creation, but a FA stands on it's own. Now there shouldn't be a redlinked topic that doesn't deserve to be an article, but it's not the burden of a FA author to create stubs for every potential article it links to. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nice work, much improved from when you first asked me to look at it. Last thing is to improve the flow of the prose partly through eliminating the one and two sentence paragraphs. Either expand them into a full idea, merge them with related material or remove them. Also, in general The rest of the prose is choppy in places, work on improving the flow by adding and improving transitions. I do agree the citations in the lead aren't needed if it properly summarized cited information in the rest of the article. But to me it's not a problem to leave it cited. - Taxman ^Talk 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - hopefully smoothed. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, better, could always use improvement like anything else, but this is clearly among Wikipedia's best work. Keep them coming, want to do Phelps next? - Taxman ^Talk 01:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Can you put a support here? Hmm, the Phelps bio isn't in the libraries in my home town...Perhaps cricket articles are better since ALoan can help me with my prose....Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Object—1a. Here are random examples of why the whole text needs thorough copy-editing.
  • "an Australian former freestyle swimmer"—Awkward syntax; reverse the second and third words. And "the youngest male to ever represent Australia"—Reverse "to ever".
  • " He has won five Olympic Games gold medals, the most of any Australian and is the only person to have won win six gold medals in one world championships at the 2001 World Championships,[1] and has won eleven World Championship golds in total, the most won by any swimmer.[2]" This winding snake needs chopping up. So does this one: "However, he was struck down by glandular fever, forcing him to withdraw. Subsequent training camps in the United States were similarly hampered, and he announced his retirement from competition on 21 November 2006 at the age of 24, indicating that he was moving into the next phase of his life, citing waning motivation.[10]"
  • "Aside from 13 individual long-course world records,[9] Thorpe has also"—You can't have both "aside from" and "also". Second para, last two sentences each have a redundant "also". Every sentence in the text is an also, so it's much smoother not to use the word.
  • MoS is silent on this matter, but I think most house styles demand spaces either side of the times symbol: " 4×100".

The first thing to do is to chop up the huge sentences throughout. Then find fresh eyes to audit the prose. Tony 09:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made further attempts to fix up the prose by dividing sentences and removing some redundancies. I will change the x spacing soon. Is it an improvement? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Tony. Also, please don't use ibid in the dynamic environment that is Wiki, as future editors could insert new references, messing up the ibid. The lead includes a lot of detail, rather than a compelling summary: once you've had a thorough copyedit, the lead may need particular attention. Images need attention: looks like a lot of Fair Use images. Sandy (Talk) 16:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have fixed the ibid thing. I have tweaked the lead somewhat. As for the fair use images, I feel that they convey important historic events in Thorpe's career and cannot be replaced by re-enactments and such. Is there a limit to FU images used in the prose? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Further comments. It's better, but there are still problems in the prose, and there must be no shortage of fresh eyes to look at this one from a copy-editing viewpoint. There are issues concerning the smooth integration of ideas into sentences, such as:
  • "Thorpe was a large baby, weighing 4.1 kg and measuring 57.5 cm in length at birth and grew up in a family of sporting pedigree in the working-class Sydney suburb of Milperra." (and ... and; the two statements aren't closely enough connected to be joined by the second "and", which, in any case, needs to be separated from the first "and" by a comma). Try a semicolon: "at birth; he grew up ...", or just two separate sentences. Or—
  • "Thorpe was initially sidelined as a young child due to a chlorine allergy,[7] and swam in his first race at a school carnival aged seven with his head out of the water." OK, you have to think for a half a second to put together that the head out of the water was to avoid the chlorine; this should be neatly spelt out. "Thorpe was initially sidelined as a young child due to a chlorine allergy.[7] Because of this allergy, he swam his first race at a school carnival aged seven with his head out of the water." See how much easier it is to read?
  • There are awkward wordings, such as: "Thorpe did not seem to inherit the ball his parent's ball skills, instead following his elder sister Christina into swimming lessons at Padstow swimming pool when he was 5 [five] years old. This came through [opportunity arose by] chance after Christina was given medical advice that swimming would strengthen a broken wrist attained in [from] a backyard accident." And:
  • "He managed to win despite the ungainly technique, primarily due to his significant size advantage." By juxtaposing "the ungainly technique" and "primarily due", the reader will momentarily wonder whether it was the ungainly technique that was caused by his size. Makes the reader work harder to make sense of it, which should not be the case in good writing.

I took these examples from one small window in the article that I selected at random. This suggests that the whole text requires careful work. Do you know how to locate one or more good copy-editors? Research the edit histories of Australian- and sports-related articles (perhaps FAs), and identify those who performed linguistic, as opposed to procedural edits. Ask them nicely. Tony 11:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, they have been fized along with the spacing after the times. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - A very good and comprehensive article. - Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• More problems in the prose, selected at random from a single paragraph:
  • "His winning times were on average two seconds per hundred metres faster than the silver medalist"—False contrast: insert "those of" before "the silver".
  • "Frost knew that Thorpe had no realistic chance of gaining Olympic selection at only 13 years and 6 months, but sent him to Sydney in order to gain racing experience at senior national level."—Add "of age", remove "in order", add "the" before "senior".
  • "but swam slower in the final to miss selection"—Nope, "more slowly". But shouldn't it be "too slowly ... to be selected"? That's a blooper. Tony 01:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• • • Yes, by now it appears that I am either simply not skillful enough or simply not in a relaxed enough state to pick up these subtleties. I have fixed them and asked ALoan, who is active in sports to have a look at them, but he appears to be busy. You are an Australian Tony, perhaps you may help me please, so that I could pick up more examples for future use. Kind regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. We need more FAs on sports people. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks good now. I'm surprised that Blnguyen hasn't had an FA before. Makes me feel like I'm the only admin who hasn't had one. JoshuaZ 03:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  • • Errmmm, looking at my RfA nominations, and I tend to preference those with a healthy chunk of writing, the number of FAs I see is 0, 0.5, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1 featured portal, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 0, 10 + 6 partials for Rama's Arrow and 0.5. So I would probably think that only 10-15% have an FA. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, one minor issue. It would be good to track down with a citation who the relative who had cancer was. The comment <>s seems to be unlikely given age issues. JoshuaZ 03:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That was my fault - I put "relation" in there while checking with Blnguyen about what the relationship was. Yomangani^talk 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support (Disclaimer: I've done some copy-editing on it during FAC) Despite the length it's a good read. Comprehensive and interesting. Yomangani^talk 18:53, 30 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)

First FAC.

• 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)

• This has been sitting here for awhile, so here's some feedback. Great article, but needs more citations. I've added {{fact}} and inline comments where I feel that they are needed. I'll object until this is addressed. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 04:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done Kingjamie 20:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There are still a few places that would be served by a citation (last two sentences of "Toyota tyre failures" and all of "Race report"). There's even a quote from Bob Varsha that's not cited. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, deleted Varsha quote but last two sentences of "Toyota tyre failures" are already cited Kingjamie 17:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the last two sentences of the first paragraph. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 23:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Done Kingjamie 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Support. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 07:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Question Why is an article on the United States Grand Prix using "tyres" instead of "tires"? Doesn't this fall into the category of distinctly American and should therefore use US English. Jay32183 20:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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). Kingjamie 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. Jay32183 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jocelin

Self-nom. I'm confident the article is factual, neutral and concise, and that it is now of FA quality. Besides my experience with FA articles, two other wiki users have already expressed the same opinion. If there are any issues with it, I believe they are only minor and can be resolved here fairly quickly; hence I'm moving the article on beyond peer review stage and nominating for Featured Article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, as self-nom. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - very pleasant, well researched and written article. Congratulations, Calgacus! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support --Eupator 18:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comments

• Why is the word Scottish in quotes in some of the text? This is neither consistent nor explained.
• Similarly, why is the word promoted in quotes in the bishop of Glasgow section?
• The sentence It is certainly obvious that Jocelin was one of the most respected figures in the kingdom. is poorly-expressed, since this statement comes before the evidence supporting it. Overall very good, well referenced and clearly-written. TimVickers 23:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments, Tim. The first paragraph of "Early life" should explain why "Scottish" is in inverted commas; "promoted" is in inverted commas because, while many may regard it as a promotion, it was not a promotion in any formal sense. As for the sentence, I guess that's there as one of the many sentences introducing the paragraph's content in the paragraph's first line. I don't know if you'll find these answers satisfactory; if you don't, lemme know and I'll make the necessary changes. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Tony 14:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thylacine

Self nom. I've rewritten this article over the past couple of weeks - there's a little of the original left but it's mostly new material. It's had a peer review and several other people have looked it over to help me clear up any problems before bringing it here. I think it's ready now. Yomangani^talk 00:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support, another fine effort and interesting read. (I looked at the article earlier, and made a few small edits.) Sandy (Talk) 00:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support great article. - Tutmosis 00:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support ditto. comprehensive, neutral, easy to read, lead good..Cas Liber 00:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above Jay32183 01:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support - It's a good, informative read, but it could use some citation in the lead. bibliomaniac15 02:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I thought the general feeling was that citations be kept out of the lead (as it is a summary of the artcle body anyway) and linked through the article proper. Cas Liber 02:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I found this a fascinating read. I'm not really in a position to comment on the factual content, but it is well cited and reads well. It'd be great to get it featured on the main page as an FA. It thoroughly merits such status. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support excellent article. (I was one of the 'other people' who looked it over for Yomangani) Jasper33 09:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Could you eliminate some of the red links, they are quite annoying. Even the stubs would suffice. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Not really. To quote Giano: "Redlinks are one of the benefits of a wiki - they encourage others to contribute material to make the redlink turn blue. Many people think it is more helpful to leave a link red than to create a bunch of one-line stubs which provide a misleading impression of Wikipedia's (lack of) comprehensiveness." I have actually filled or redirected or eliminated a few of the redlinks already, (Henry Burrell for example), and have some of the others on my list to do at some point, but I'm not going to create a one liner that doesn't add anything to the encyclopaedia just so the link is different colour. Yomangani^talk 09:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good update and good to see more images added. I have made some minor edits and added the quote from "The ancestors tale" please amend it if you think it is appropriate to. Maybe the lead should say that it is "the largest known Carnivorous Marsupial in modern times" --Mutley 11:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Kind of in a hurry so these are my comments for the first two sections. Will continue my review later. Joelito (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "The modern Thylacine first appeared about 4 million years ago, but closely related species date back to the beginning of the Miocene." The second part of the sentence does not contradict the first, hence "but" should not be used. Use a semicolon or separate into two sentences. Also, what does closely related species refer to? I presume it is of the same family so why not state it clearly. e.g. (Some) Species belonging to the Thylacinidae family date back to the beggining of the Miocene

    Fixed

  • "...is the oldest of the seven discovered fossil Thylacine species" This is confusing since Thylacine is the common name for T. cynocephalus and by refering to Thylacine species one may think you are talking about 7 fossil individuals. I believe you wished to refer to members of the Thylacinidae family. Re-write as "is the oldest of the seven discovered fossil Thylacinidae species".

    Just dropped the "Thylacine"

  • "the Powerful Thylacine,Thylacinus potens,". "the Powerful Thylacine (Thylacinus potens)" for consistency.

    Fixed

  • "The animal was rare even in Tasmania by the time the first explorers arrived." European explorers? Weren't the aborigines explorers also? Why "even in Tasmania"? We have not established (aside from the lead) that the animal was extirpated from mainland Australia.

    Well, "indigenous peoples" suggests they weren't explorers and European is mentioned in the next sentence. Since we have established in the lead that it is extinct I don't think the "even in Tasmania" is too much of a leap, but maybe I'm missing your point.

  • "However, it was not until 1805..." Again this sentence does not contradict the preceeding one. Just eliminate "However"

    "However" doesn't imply a contradiction. It emphasises that nine years passed between it being reported and the first description being sent.

  • "Recognition that the Australian marsupials were fundamentally different from the known mammal genera led to the establishment of the modern classification scheme, and in 1796 Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire created the genus Dasyurus where he placed the Thylacine in 1810, and to resolve the mixture of Greek and Latin nomenclature the species name was altered to cynocephalus." Damn. This is what Tony calls a snake. Chop the snake!!! (e.g. Divide into two sentences around "scheme, and in")

    Snake arose from a poor bit of cutting and pasting, but the action in the second clause is a result of the action in the first, so breaking where you suggested isn't really a good idea. I cut off the Greek/Latin section instead, but other suggestions for a prettier rendition of the first section would be good.

    Thanks for the comments so far. Yomangani^talk 19:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support. Excellent!--Yannismarou 10:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Overall, it's very good; I'll support it when the writing has been polished. Here are examples of the need for this.
  • "The Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is a large carnivorous marsupial native to Australia which is thought to have become extinct in the 20th century." Since Australia didn't become extinct in the 20th century, why not make it smoother: "The Thylacine (Thylacinus cynocephalus) is a large carnivorous marsupial that was native to Australia and is thought to have become extinct during the 20th century."

    First couple of sentences have been rewritten.

  • "Heavy hunting"—Should be "Intensive hunting".

    Fixed.

  • "Widespread throughout"—better "in".

    "throughout" was used to indicate that it was widespread in the whole of Australia rather than in certain areas. It did have "in mainland Australia" but it was pointed out that this could suggest it was not in Tasmania.

  • "The animal was rare even in Tasmania by the time the first explorers arrived."—Reverse the clauses and separate with a comma? "By the time ..."

    Fixed.

  • "The animal was first definitively encountered by"—awkward wording.

    Fixed(ish - struggling to find an alternative that conveys the same meaning).

  • "Marc-Joseph Marion du Fresne, arriving with the Mascarin in 1772, reported meeting with a "tiger cat"." So it was a chat with a cat, was it?

    Fixed (although I think "meeting" is an acceptable synonym for "encountering". It didn't say "arranging a meeting" after all).

  • Can you transliterate the Greek term in parentheses?

    Done.

  • "100 to 180 cm (39–71 in) long, including a tail of around 50 to 65 cm (19.6–25.5 in)"—En dashes for all?

    I used a mixture to break it up a bit, but I'll change it if there is a general objection to that style.

Plus more. Tony 15:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers. Yomangani^talk 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Nice article, it is! Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weymouth

This article was nominated by me 3 weeks ago, and failed to recieve FA status, for a number of reasons. The opponents described what needed to be changed to the article, and with excellent help and long dialogues with User:Tutmosis, a long series of improvements have been made to the article. Hence Tutmosis has now confirmed his support for this article to become featured, and I believe that the dozens of improvements I and a few others have made have brought the article upto featured quality. I have checked the article for common mistakes and things which people may object to, and made sure that it conforms to WP:MOS and Featured article criteria. Rossenglish 13:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

First FAC

• SupportObject You don't wikilink solo years, refs come after punctuation and with no space between it and the punctuation--not in the middle of a sentence, dates shouldn't have "th" after them, suggest review the article for more wikilinking.Rlevse 14:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for the input, wikilinking has been reviewed Done Rossenglish 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Final items: Your see also links should be in alphabetical order and your dates in the refs should be wikilinked. The best thing to do for the refs is put them in citephp/web format. I've done one for you to show you how. Rlevse 15:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ive done the see also bit, but the citephp/web formatting of the refs will take a while ;) Its alot of fiddly work to change all those refs, I'll do them slowly one section at a time =)Rossenglish 15:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Rlevse, when I have finished changing these refs, would you support the nomination, or do you have any other improvements? Rossenglish 18:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That's be all. That's what I meant by "Final items". Rlevse 19:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thankyou! Just to let you know, all the references are in the new format now. Thanks for the suggestions Rlevse. Rossenglish 19:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: previous issues from the last FAC have been dealt with. Although a few double wikilinks are still present. - Tutmosis 15:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support The issues expressed in the previous FAC have been resolved, the article is featured quality. Hello32020 01:09, 27 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)

Support. Clearly-written, illuminating and well-referenced. Excellent work. TimVickers 23:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support It's an excellent article. I'll have a go at reproducing the cyclol reaction formulae in SVG format, but otherwise I can see no problems. Laïka 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support No awkward prose, well-referenced, fluid. Good work! riana_dzasta 08:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written and referenced --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:43, 28 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)
• Support I saw this article in Peer Review and I appreciate the NPOV tone of this controversial figure and like the way the article strings together a broad portrait of the subject. Agne 23:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've seen the article grow and omprove over the last few weeks/months. I added a few categories. There may be additional ones available. On a side note, about 2-3 years ago someone I knew had mentioned the WCG and wondered "where did it go"? If this article were available then it would have been easy to tell him. Mfields1 00:02, 28 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)

• Support 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)
      • Yep, good work! Support now. Fieari 18:14, 25 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)

• Support; the point I'd raise is that although I'd agree that a link to oil is a bit redundant, a link to North Sea oil might not go amiss. Laïka 14:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Done, thanks. Globaltraveller 16:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well done. —Nightstallion (?) 22:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Standard Time

I had submitted this article in August for FAC (nom) but it failed as it did not get any support to be promoted (+1/-1). I have reviewed the objection carefully since then and don't think it is paramount to add it in the article. Any suggestions welcome (if I can find credible sources). It is currently rated as a Good article. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; I read Rama's comments from the last time around, and I feel that this covers what is necessary. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 03:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose; Too short, and I don't like how the sections begin abruptly like this one.

1) With an east-west distance of over 2,000 km (1,200 mi), the sun rises and sets an hour earlier in eastern India than in the west.

2) Begin with an introductory sentence that describes the problems with the ist. (Wikimachine 12:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC))

Reply. Both problems addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum. Being "too short" isn't an actionable concern unless what is missing is pointed out. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ummm... too short is not actionable. You would have to state what content it lacks that it is too short. And lenght is not a problem. We have a couple of featured articles shorter than this. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In comparative sense, many other standard time articles should also be featured articles if this should one also, for example Time in Australia. This should apply for good article, if it wants to try. Additional topics that could expand this article are broadcasting concerns, list of metropolitan areas/states within the zone, inaccuracy & standards (in relation to Earth's orbit & rotation & axis), & anomalies. I didn't think of these out of blue, they are in other time zone articles such as Central European Time, etc. (Wikimachine 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC))

Time in Australia is hardly referenced (no inline refs), and what is more important, I don't even see it going to FAC, so there is no question of it being rejected on grounds that it is short. If the referencing concerns are addressed, I am sure that TiA can also be a featured article. For comparison, Crushing by elephant is nearly the same size as this one, and it is a featured article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

But we're not talking about referencing, I think this article's fine in that. & as I've mentioned in the section below, justification is not necessary. This is probably the first time when a standard time article becomes a featured article (if it does). So it needs different standards. And I think that this article needs to be really good to make a worthy precedent for other standard time articles to follow. And I personally don't think that those other articles about exploding whale, Crushing by elephant, Japanese toilets, etc. should be featured articles. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Can you elucidate what you mean by "broadcasting concerns". The list of metropolitan areas in the zone would be useless as it has been mentioned in the first sentence of the lead that IST is followed throughout India, without any exceptions. Inaccuracies & standards WRT Earth's orbit are better discussed in a dedicated article like Equation of time, and the same info need not be repeated in all the time zone articles as it is beyond their scope. Anyway, thanks for pointing out this relevant topic and I have added it to the "See also" section. Anomalies usually occur when there is different standard prevailing for places that should have a common standard. Since IST is applied everywhere, there are no anomalies. Of course, a single standard comes with its own set of problems, which have been discussed in the "Problems" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies & standards are specific to this article because they vary among different time zones. I don't expect readers to be able to go to Indian Standard Time Zone, go to Equation of Time, calculate the differences & anomalies & the say "aha!".

You could add something about the time zone's uniformity. Another user could never know what's missing & what's not. About broadcasting concern, I don't think that this zone has one because as you said it is standard throughout all of India. (Wikimachine 17:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

• Comment A few of the paragraphs in the History section are without citations. Gzkn 05:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. Done. Please tell if more are required. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you got them all. I am concerned, however, with the recent addition of a trivia section, which should usually be avoided. Gzkn 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I have removed it as a Trivia section is not recommended for FAs. To preserve the information for future development, I have re-created the article here. Hope this is acceptable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The image Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png is no longer correct. Sri Lanka now follows IST. Right now that is the most "visible" gaffe. Secondly the line that DST was used in the 62, 65 and 71 wars states "to reduce civilian energy consumption." but the source doesn't mention that as the reason, in fact it doesn't give any reason why it was used. It's only an assumption that DST is mostly used to save energy. While it's the most likely reason a cite would be better. Idleguy 08:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. The image has been updated now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Considering that energy saving is primary (if not only) reason for DST, is a reference really required? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that it was used as a wartime measure, it could also have been used in order to deter night lights serving as a beacon for enemy planes if they attacked cities late in the evening or at the crack of dawn. That's a possibility, that's why a source stating the reason would be better. Many war time memories state that vehicles were asked to switch off lights for this purpose as few military planes had night vision. Idleguy 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but that's technically called a blackout, not a DST. The source clearly mentions DST, not blackout. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Such a possibility might have used it as a deterrance measure, but it would be more suited to the border areas rather than changing the timezone of the entire country. Again this would be speculative. =Nichalp «Talk»= 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The article's history says vipala is the smallest unit of measuring time based on hindu traditions. But according to Hindu astronomy, half a nimesa (ardha nimesa) is the smallest one. After doing some math I found that vipala works out to 1/216,000th of a day while half a nimesa is 1/405000 day according to that article. One of these must be wrong, or maybe I'm confused. Idleguy 11:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I have fixed it. I searched again and found prativa pala as the smallest unit (=.006 s). Thanks for pointing out the inconsistancy. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Oppose. There are still a couple of issues including the citation not matching what is written. For instance, note #2 points to a BBC article that only says that the issue was being investigated and doesn't say anything about it was not recommended, or the reasons why it was not adopted. I found that an earlier mention to the hindu article was wrongly pointed to some other website, but I corrected it myself. The article has to say why it was not adopted with proper cite. Also, the article should mention the official internet page where the time can be checked. AIR and Doordarshan are mentioned, but I'm assuming that an official website exists somewhere. Idleguy 14:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  I'll be overseeing it over the weekend. Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've checked all the references and it seems to be ok. Also updated the dates accessed.
  • As for DST, the article on it Daylight Savings Time does not list any other reasons why it may be used other than energy savings.
  • Added reason why timezones were rejected by Govt of India. Real coup as I got it from a Rajya Sabha transcript.
  • Added more text to the article.
  • Added a link where the IST can be checked.

  =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  Other reasons for DST from the article says it reduces crime and traffic accidents and encouraging outdoor activities. -Idleguy 14:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good compact article. Meets FA criteria. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Is licensing Image:IST-CIA-TZ.png as {{pd-self}} acceptable, considering it is a derived work?--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. I am sure it is. The original work is licensed as a {{PD-self}}, which means that the author doesn't claim any right on the image any more. This means that there is no authorship claim on the image and the image is truly free. This allows anyone to pass on the image under any license, even as a self-created work. However, to make things clear that the image has been sourced from such a work, a link to the original image has been provided. Even this, I believe, is courtesy, not a requirement considering the waiver of all rights over the image by the original author. Note that even the original work is derived from PD work, i.e. CIA World Factbook, and claimed as PD-self. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Support - Thank you. That sounds logical. You have my support. For conspiracy theorists: I have been following this article since it had been in PR, and I believe it discusses the subject matter to the standards required by featured content.--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 13:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A nice article with a length that does not intimidate. We need more of these. --Blacksun 19:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: A great article with detailed information ("Indian Standard Time (IST) is the time observed throughout India, with a time offset of UTC+5:30. India does not observe daylight saving time (DST) or other seasonal adjustments, although DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971") that covers the history as well as problems of Indian Standard Time. (User • Talk) 00:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support This article is well written and well referenced with appropriate use of inline citations. Jay32183 18:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy Here & Absolute Oppose

• I checked national identity of the 7 Wikipedians (besides me) who participate in this featured article promotion.
• 6/7 Wikipedians are Indians.
• 3/7 Wikipedians here edited the article.
• Absolutely Oppose.
• Conspiracy.
• Unless you bring in more third party voters, I'm reporting this to a higher branch in Wikipedia, such as the Arbitration Committee. (Wikimachine 03:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC))
  • Hmmm...if this indeed were a conspiracy, you would have already seen my support on the article. I supported the article in the last FAC, but since I now consider it a semi co-nom as I have edited the article a lot, I haven't shown my "Support" for the article. Also, if you were regular at FAC, you would have seen Spangineer as a neutral and (ahem....) ruthless participator in FAC debates. Also, it is a good thing if the reviewers make a good faith effort in improving the article. If you see my edit history, you would have seen that I edit almost 80~90% of the articles I see during FAC. Again, you need not worry about these things as FAC is not even a !vote, and a single valid objection is enough to sink the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • If there were conspiracies, Idleguy and Deepujoseph would have registered support, rather than raising concerns that could sink the FAC. I see 3 Indians who have supported this, and 2 Indians who have raised concerns. (Me and Nichalp have not !voted as this is a co-nom). So it is anybody's guess if this is conspiracy to promote or reject. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • \FAC is not a vote. No one is obliged to bring in third party votes. If you have some objections regarding the content of the article, then it would be useful to all if you could list them. If you can't find any points to object, then your conspiracy theory is moot as according to you the article is already FA standards. Please note that Raul does not just count the number of votes while promoting articles, but also checks if all the concerns by other editors have been addressed. And then there is also AGF. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 06:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also want to add that Wikimachine's opposition due to what he/she perceives as an "Indian conspiracy" is quite offensive and has nothing to do with the content of the article. Gzkn 07:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
• I find it really funny that Wikimachine wants to push it to arbitration. If he so wishes he may do so, but please do remember what the Arbcom is meant for before you submit your case. Don't say we didn't warn you if your case is unanimously thrown out. Next, five of the people who have commented/supported the article have at least one featured article to their name. So your case of a people blindly voting based on their nationality seems to be a matter of making wild accusations which I consider offensive as you haven't researched on who is reviewing the article. If the article is as bad as you say, why don't you help us by telling us what criteria of WP:WIAFA it does not meet? =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• I never meant it as Indian conspiracy. But this is what I consider internal systemic bias. I can imagine a group of foreigners who only participate in articles regarding topics pertaining to their own culture/history & since they are the only ones participating in it, they could be the only ones participating in the featured article candidate discussion & thus making featured article status inevitable.
  • Foreigners? I'm not sure which country you're from, so I'm not sure which nationalities you would consider foreigners. Would an article on an American topic that was passed by mostly American editors qualify for similar suspicion? What about Canada? The UK? MLilburne 18:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I am interested in what group did you classify me? I hold an American Passport but live and work in Netherlands while also having Indian ancestry. Please note, my utter disgust and strong offense at your attempt to classify me and other wikipedians on racial or ethnic groups and implying that our input/vote is based on anything but the quality of the article. --Blacksun 12:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Foreigners as people who aren't English-speaking Europeans.
  • In my invitation for various WikiProjects, I've posted this: "I want to note that Indians are a special exception from other nationalities in Wikipedia because most of them can speak and write fluent English & thus can participate more in English Wikipedia while other foreigners can't & thus limit their participation in fields related to their nationality/culture & making participation of other third parties more likely.", thus clarifying my cooperative stance with Indians yet focusing on the internal systemic bias.
  • As for Americans/British/etc. editing English leading to POVness/systemic bias, see Wikipedia:WikiProject countering systemic bias. Furthermore, I think that users of other nationalities have different incentives from those of Americans/British/Canadians/Australians/etc. in editing the English Wikipedia. The first being the expansion & promotion of articles related to their culture/history/country, as a means of resisting the systemic bias of the majority, not only in Wikipedia but also in society. And English Wikipedia, written under the international language, is the best and most productive means of achieving this goal. The majority in the English Wikipedia are mostly English-speaking people, and therefore do not have any incentive to do so.
  • Blacksun, I'm sorry that you were offended (and others too), but I did not do the classification myself. I looked at user pages of each of the voters in the fac earlier.

• Nej - you indeed classified me based on false assumptions. No where in my userpage I mention anything about my nationality. You made a false assumption based on couple of barnster awards or user activity. --Blacksun 22:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

One exception was you. (Wikimachine 22:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC))

• • What I did I did as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject countering systemic bias. (Wikimachine 03:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

• I'm disregarding the fact that some of you "commented" instead of "voting" & I'm not going to check editing history of every one of you b/c (1) I don't think I can (2) Too many (3) Simpler option: bring in third party.
• I'd say third party is absolutely needed, regardless of whether something is a vote or not. Community consensus means not only opinions from one type of nationality/culture, but a mix.
• It fails to comply with 1 (b): "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details. I've listed additional topics that the article could cover (since other standard time articles cover them) & there is no reason why if this should be a featured article, others should be also.
• "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant. I've noted few format/style problems, and I can note much more brilliant quality in other featured articles. There's no reason why because some featured articles were nominated in shorter form than this one this one should be. Maybe, we need to correct our previous mistakes. This type of justification is unnecessary.
• This is a vote, that's why voting's taking place (?). The paragraph in the very top part of this page says that consensus must be reached. Quotation from the article Wikipedia:Consensus:

Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate. However, when supermajority voting is used, it should be seen as a process of 'testing' for consensus, rather than reaching consensus.

(Wikimachine 16:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

• I'm bringing in third parties from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, random admins, etc. So don't close this vote yet. (Wikimachine 16:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

You are free to bring in more editors to weigh on this article and we would appreciate any additional feedback on the article. But as mentioned earlier, I would repeat that unlike the processes like RfA where numbers can't be disregarded, FACs depend totally on merit and even a single valid opposition is good enough to stop the article from being a featured article. If you don't believe me, ask Raul, who handles FAC promotions. Also, there are reasons why some people restrict themselves to a category of articles. One of them is that they are confident in their knowledge in that particular field only, and are in better position to comment on comprehensiveness. For example, if I ask you to review Chalukya Dynasty, you would hadly be in a position to comment anything other than spelling and grammer. So I see it a positive sign that people only pass their judgment on what they are confident about. Secondly, the Indian Wikiproject is a very active workgroup with lot of closely working people so that whenever any help is needed, there are always a big group of people to refer to. This has helped us in our previous endevours to get FAs as even before the articles are submitted for FA, there is very rigourous review of the article by the workgroup itself. I wouldn't be wrong to say that selection into the Indian portal is one of the biggest challenge that could be faced by an article after FAC. You won't see that in case of this article, as Nichalp already has 10 FA under his belt so he knows what are the common mistakes and objections. For example see the recently concluded discussion on Culture of Thiruvananthapuram article to get selected into the Indian Portal. Would you say that there is conspiracy for selection to even Indian Portal? Coming back to the issues of merits of the article (which probably should be our primary concern). I have addressed all concerns raised by you except for the "broadcasting concerns" which I am unable to comprehend. If you can clarify what you want, even that can be addressed. As regards to quality of prose, please point out where the article lacks, as it is very difficult for us if you don't even point out where the article lacks. With regards to the size of the article, even I don't want that to be a part of the debate, but I remember that you first brought that into picture and I had to address that. Personally speaking, I feel that we should talk about this specific article, rather than any general article. Finally, I again repeat that FAC is not a !vote. Hope this clears the doubts in your mind. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I am changing my stance. I've looked at all other standard time articles in process of searching for what this article might lack.... But most other time zone articles have one word/sentence & then list of metropolitan areas. So I am willing to support if you would add something about the anomalies in rotation, etc. in the Problem sections. But let users that I've invited comment also as due process of reaching consensus. (Wikimachine 17:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

Thank you for your change in stance. Do you suggest we duplicate information from Equation of time to all time articles in this list? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Kind of, but aren't there anomalies specific to the time zone? (Wikimachine 21:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC))

• Support The the expansion of the Problems section to include the anomalies specific to the time zone has been done. All grammar and prose problems that I have identified were fixed. This is the best time zone article available & will set good standards for later time zone featured articles. (Wikimachine 03:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC))
  • If you support now, can you please strike off the addressed concerns in your "Oppose" vote before. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Support It support the article. Amartyabag 12:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The following WikiProjects have been notified: Countering systemic bias, Japan, Germany, Russia, United States. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I am here because of the comment left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. It is preposterous to object to an FAC on the grounds that the most people voting (and yes, FAC is a vote, it's not like AFD here) are interested in the article. This is certainly true for every other FAC ever since the beginning of Wikipedia. People who are interested in the article are the ones who come to vote on whether it should be an FA. Big deal. —Angr 17:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • While I don't disagree with your larger point, I just wanted to point out that FAC most definitely is not a vote. --Robth^Talk 16:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. I think it's kind of silly that things came out this way, but I was called here from a note at WP:JP. I think the article is well-sourced and broad enough, but there are some problems with the prose. Grammatically, there are several verbs that don't go with their preprositions. There are also some run-ons and hyphens incorrectly used in place of en/em-dashes, etc. The prose should be clean and tight in a featured article. Dekimasu 00:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. While I don't want to get heavily involved in this discussion, I did click on the featured article at Chalukya Dynasty. I was impressed by the detail and breadth and sourcing. However, I came across phrasing like "It brought about some remarkable achievements in the myriad realms of culture, particularly in the evolution and proliferation of their unique style of architecture known as Vesara, a combination of the South Indian and the North Indian building styles. Chalukyas have left behind their legacy of some of the most beautiful monuments." There are prose and NPOV problems there. While not the result of intentional bias on the part of the editors, these statements do not belong in a featured article in this form, and perhaps it is the very way that the article topic is opaque to most foreigners that causes that type of thing to be missed. Of course it's not a conspiracy, but I can understand objections to the tone. The featured articles on British topics, say, have been read and seen and edited by more editors before being promoted. This has probably resulted in more ironing-out of problems with the articles. That is not to fault the nominator here or of any other article on an Indian topic, as we all work with whoever we can draw to our projects; no one mentioned this problem in a peer review that happened only last month. However, prose style is a big issue when the overall goal is to make Wikipedia articles unbiased and verifiable. The phrases "remarkable achievements" and "some of the most beautiful monuments" can never be verified because they are subjective. They may very well be beautiful and remarkable, but to say so isn't encyclopedic. ...And I know we are not here to talk about the Chalukya Dynasty, so I will turn off the objections now. Dekimasu 01:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

Thanks for taking time to review the article. I have fixed the hyphens used incorrectly for endashes, but couldn't find any occurance that would need an emdash. As I told to Wikimachine before, can you please point out the places you feel the article lacks, because if we could see any better, we would have already fixed it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I have given another copyedit to the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I came over from WikiProject: Countering systemic bias. Foreigners? What does that mean anyway? Is this a country? I guess I am a foreigner (as defined by Wikimachine) as I am not an English-speaking European (although I am an American). It is not unusual (as pointed by Angr) for people interested in an article to work on it and vote it to FA. That has always gone on. Usually, they are not seen as "foreigners", so I can only hazard a guess that is what brought this on. I don't think we should discourage what is going on here, and especially not under the guise of countering systemic bias. There is no conspiracy here. Just hard-working editors seeking to bring information that is usually not added, from a background quite different than many on English Wikipedia. We should encourage this, as that is why the countering systemic bias project was formed in the first place. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Looks good. Saravask 20:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think the problems section should be expanded. For eg: I had read in a newspaper a few years back that assam and the north eastern states wanted to change the IST because the local time is 1 hour forward than IST. I'll try to add that infoin the article.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 21:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. This infor is already present. The following sentence summarizes it: "Inhabitants of the north–eastern states have long demanded a separate time zone to advance their clocks with the early sunrise and avoid the extra consumption of energy after daylight hours." Reference is also provided for the same. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - referred from WikiProject Germany. I have two suggestions for improvement, both minor. I agree that the article is comprehensive and well sourced, but would love to see some references from printed, not online sources. Also, the first sentence of the "History" section, specifically the phrase "...which according to them", strikes me as clumsy. However, these concerns are nowhere near big enough to prevent it from reaching featured status, IMO. Badbilltucker 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Reply. The 'clumsiness' has been removed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support; informative, well-writen prose, good images and generally worthy of FA. Laïka 11:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments:
  • I was wondering about daylight saving time that was used in two wars. This should be an important fact, because it is re-iterated in the lead section. However, the main article only explains it in a single sentence and it is an orphan paragraph. I'd like to learn more about this fact. Could editors expand that stubby paragraph?
  • Another important fact in the lead is the contradiction clauses of this sentence: "Local time is calculated from a clock tower at the Allahabad Observatory (25.15° N 82.5° E) though the official time servers are located in New Delhi." Why can't I find it in the main article? I want to know why there are two different time calculations?

— Indon (reply) — 13:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Object per my unanswered comments above and the following other comments, as of the time of my review [6]:
  • Comprehensiveness. The article is too short to be featured. Many portions of the article is about the history of time zones in India, so I would suggest to rename the title into "Time Zones in India" or something like that.
  • Unreliable sources:
    • http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ is full of ads and not a reliable webpage because the author is unknown. This source is used in most part of the article with 4 citations.
    • http://www.irfca.org/faq/faq-misc.html is only a FAQ list from an electronic mailing list or discussion group written by railfans (see About IRFCA). Again, authors cannot be said reliable.
    • http://www.mumbai-central.com/nukkad/dec2001/msg00221.html is an email, definitely unreliable.

— Indon (reply) — 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Replying:

1. Sources: 1. http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/ authors are known: (credits), and see the [http://wwp.greenwich2000.ltd.uk/legal.htm legal notice too about accuracy. Ads does not mean that the site is necessarily uncredible. 2. Ifrca is a very credible site contrary to what is says about it being just a mailing list (those were it's origins). Infact most of Indian Railways and Rail transport in India have been sourced from the site. And their content is internally peer reviewed before publishing, and many newpapers do source their content from this site. 3. I don't know about the third reference, I can't find a better one, so would remove it perhaps?
2. Length: there are many short featured articles, (see WP:WIAFA) where short articles are also included. This is unactionable unless you tell us what content it lacks. You said something about DST, what sort of content are you looking for?
3. Title: No, the article is about the development of the IST. How different timezones were merged into one and what the country used before that. It won't be a good idea to change the title just based on the content of one section. It was used for not more than 10 days. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Mirzapur and Delhi. At Mirzapur, IST is the local time. The acutal mechanisms which are calibrated +5:30 UTC are not on that longitude, but further westward, in New Delhi. That is what the meaning implies.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Response:
    1. Yes, the authors are known in source (1), but the website is not preferred. It looks like spam links, although I know editors of this article don't have anything to do with ads in those website. If there is other preferred, possibly academic, sources, then please replace those sources.
    2. I am not questioning the credibility of IRFCA as an organization, but taking maling list discussion from individuals as source here, for me, is not a good practice. It would be reliable if the source (2) is a press release documents or reports from IRFCA, but not FAQ. If other WP articles use that kind of source, then it does not mean that the source is reliable.
    3. If you can't find a better reference for the source (3), then please remove it and also the fact that comes from it.
    4. Yes, length is not a WIAFA criterion, but I'm still feeling that the article is not comprehensive enough. Unless if the subject is "History of Time Zones in India", for example.
    5. I was asking DST that is said to be used only for the two wars. It is written in the lead, but there is only a single sentence in the main article, which is just a copy-pasted from [7]. In the lead, it is written:

       India does not observe daylight saving time (DST) or other seasonal adjustments, although DST was used briefly during the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971.

    For me, it is an interesting thing, but there is only this stubby orphaned paragraph in the main article:

    During the Sino–Indian War of 1962, and the Indo–Pakistani Wars of 1965 and 1971, daylight saving was briefly used to reduce civilian energy consumption.

    I want to know why if DST could reduce civilian energy consumption during the war, but it is not used in other time? Why was it said that only civilian energy consumption were reduced in the war? Were there any specific advantages to the army by using DST? Oh, and please don't answer these questions here, but in the article.

  — Indon (reply) — 09:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Replies:

1. other preferred, possibly academic, sources, then please replace those sources – If I could get my hands on such, I certainly wouln't hesitate to update the references. As mentioned in the nom, I can add new text subject to the availability of references. An article as obscure as this, does not have too much dedicated material on it. To illustrate this point, see this this
2. I've removed the text on the trial
3. Online or print references for using DST are not available at the moment, so can't add.

Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

• Nichalp wrote: "An article as obscure as this, does not have too much dedicated material on it. To illustrate this point, see this this" → that is why I cannot support this article to be featured. Sources used in this article are not yet reliable.
• To add of what I have said that this article is not comprehensive enough, and Nichalp said "This is unactionable unless you tell us what content it lacks.", actually, you pointed to me one of them from the Google Books' search result that you gave. One of the book has an interesting and important aspect of IST that affect ordinary life in India. Please see this: [8], where labour time in a factory has been affected by the IST. This is still missing in the article and I guess a lot more aspects beside labour time.
• Ah, thank you for pointing me that search. I found one more. Chapter 8 of this book: "What's This India Bussiness?" (ISBN 1904838006) has title: IST - Indian S t r e t c h a b l e Time, which describes the difficulty in India to have IST for arranging meeting, bussiness, etc. I would like to see that more in this article.

— Indon (reply) — 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

• Answering 2: I can't find a specific instance to the string "labour time". The link does not mention anything about it I'm afraid.
• Answering 3: Indian Strechable Time was added for a short time as a trivia, but Gzkn recommended we not add this (see above). As such, mentioning the habits of people in an article in an encouraging or disparaging way is considered to be a POV on wikipedia despite references on the same.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 06:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Response:

• Response (2): It doesn't necessarily to be strictly an exact phrase. The book contains information about the influence of IST for labour time in Indian factories. To give an outlook of what this book is about, I typed one paragraph from it.

As the home of the clock, however, the factory comes to mark the temporal parameters of the day, housing as it does the omnipresent siren. The siren, which used to be a loud hand-beaten "gong", sounds eight times during the day, beginning at six in the morning. Most symbolically, residues of colonial time schedules remain within workers' perceptions of the siren's call. During the colonial period, the siren's clock was advanced by half an hour, creating a temporal schism: Garden Time and Indian Standard Time. Thus when it was actually 5:30 in the morning by Indian Standard Time, the siren would sound the beginning of the 6:00 factory shift. Prior to labor legislation, planters manipulated daylight hours to stretch the working span of the day. With postcolonial legal stipulations of six- and eight- hour days, Garden Time is strictly obsolete and its earlier extractive objectives cannot be met; even if the clock was to advance by half an hour, only the stipulated legal hours of work are permitted. At Sarah's Hope, the siren sounds Indian Standard Time. Workers, nonetheless, continue to perceive this artifact of colonial scheduling as somehow present within the logics of the contemporary regimes of work.

• Response (3): I didn't ask editors to put Indian Stretcheable Time, but in that book there are information about Indian Standard Time that creates difficulty for bussiness. Is it trivia? No. It is different aspect of the subject of this article, as to get more comprenhensive.
• One more source: http://cires.colorado.edu/~bilham/Oldham1881account.htm is broken in the following citation:

Note on the earthquake of 31 December 1881, Records of the Geological Survey of India,, XVII(2), 47–53, 1884. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES). Retrieved on 2006-11-25.

According to the last web archive on 5 Januari 2006 (not 25 November 2006!!), the webpage is a reprint from Proc. Asiatic Society of Bengal, March 1883. p.60. Somebody should take a look at this article to verify that factual data that is written in this article are correct.

• For me, sources of the article currently for this FAC nomination are still vague: Google-ads websites, FAQ of mailing list discussions, an email (was removed) and now a dead link.

— Indon (reply) —

1. On Tea Plantations: To answer #1, from the example you cited, A Time for Tea actually talks about exploitation, that phrase has little to do with problems associated with the time-zone. Now as mentioned in the article, there is a legislation that allows factories in a local area to change the local time. If it is exploitation, it does not imply that IST is affected, or refer a generalised statement that this is what happens because of the time shift for factor/plantation time.
2. On stretchable time: I'm still not convinced. Quoting from the book: Indian Stretchable Time, the usual version of what IST stands for, is a brilliant excapsulation of so many attitudes and perspectives. However, it isn't mystical. – The term is coined on the for the fact that many in India have the tendancy to arrive late. This may be a problem for businesses etc, but th core concept relates to the personal habits of people in India, and not the time zone, or a problem with it. None of the above two examples can really add to the "comprehensiveness" of the article.
3. On the CIRES link : I can hit the link, not sure what the problem was there: Here is the extract if you're interested:

At Calcutta the time of arrival of the earthquake was noted by Mr. James Murray, who writes, in reply to my inquiries, that he was reading in an upstairs room when feeling the shock he immediately ran downstairs and marked on the glass of his standard regulating clock, the exact position of the second's hand and then waited to note the time of cessation of motion; afterwards he carefully took with a second's watch the time that occupied to do all he done between the moment he first felt the shock and when he made the first mark on the clock, adding this and the error of the clock on that morning, he obtained the times of commencement and cessation as 7:37:45 and 7:42:00 Calcutta Mean time, or 7:55:02 and 7:59:17 Port Blair mean time, respectively. This, I may add, is the only observation of real value made at the time and not automatically recorded that I know of in connection with this shock.

At Madras a clock in the office of the Master Attendant, electronically controlled from the astronomical observatory, was stopped at 07:05:45 local time or 07:55:36 Port Blair mean time.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 04:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support Looks good; I have touched up the language in a few places, I hope without altering meaning. I thought there were a lot of hyphenated phrases (I've left): "four-member", "time-zone" & others, that maybe could go.
• Comments 1) Bhutan & BD are presumably on +6 hours, but the map with the zones doesn't say so. I would make the map bigger- or maybe you can't make it big enough to read off the page.
• 2) I didn't really understand the bit about the terrorist's lawyer in Mumbai. It says he "argued" by "stalling" - they don't work together. What were his motives?
• 3) I was curious in reading it - how many "prativa pala"s to a solar day? Too lazy to use my calculator, & maybe too big a number for the first para.

I'd better add, for Wikimachine's statistics: white, male, lives in Uk, hetrosexual, Catholic, visited India (inc Jaipur & Dehli Jantar Mantars) and Bhutan. Probably I'm a foreigner - not sure. Any other info you need, just let me know! Johnbod 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Johnbod 02:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1. The map does show the timezone as +6. (The text is at the bottom). I'm working on an SVG version which will replace this rather silly looking one. 2. Um... Tilak wasn't a terrorist. He was arrested to having alleged links to a bomb blast. I think the stalling motives are clear... he kinda stalled proceedings in the assembly against a switch. Since the issue was minor and public sentiment was against the British, they shelved it as it was deadlocked. Was this clearer? Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• ok - I can see both points now, but did not before, which may tell you something. It sounded like the objection to the time zone was a tactic in the trial defence. If the barrister was not involved in the actual trial, you might drop the word barrister (confusing to non-foreigners anyway). I would go with "further antagonising" rather than antagonization.

Johnbod 17:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed that paragraph based on credibility concerns. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks pretty good. (I did copy-edit this a while ago at Nichalp's request.) Tony 15:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support from non-Indian, non-Hindu, never been to India....etc...Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

This is a self-nomination. I am renominating this article after it previously failed. The reasons given, were that it needed a good copyedit and more references. All of the problems were noted and addressed (thanks to a wonderful copyedit by Deckiller) and I now believe it to be among Wikipedia's best work. It has had a peer review and has been rated as A-class by WikiProject Films. It is not only a good article, but also a part of the newly formed featured topic. The Filmaker 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Co-nom/Support — a solid article all around; the prose should qualify enough, but I'll definitely be around if anyone believes that further copyediting is needed. — Deckiller 04:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support per my own nom. The Filmaker 04:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support... and not just because I'm a SW geek. Well written, very much in the vein of the other featured SW articles. Hopefully we'll get all six to FA status soon. Anthony Hit me up... 04:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent article, and much improved from last time. You did an especially nice job on Cinematic and Literary Allusions too, as that section is well-referenced. A couple quibbles:

• I'd add a sentence or two mentioning Star Wars' inspirations and impact in the lead.
  • Your other suggestions have been fixed or implemented, however I'm not sure that including the inspirations in the lead is really necessary. The Filmaker 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm not saying include the actual names of all the inspirations and such in the lead; I'd just like the lead to mention that Star Wars drew inspiration from a number of sources, and that it has influenced just as many others. Then the lead would give a nice overview of the entire article.--Dark Kubrick 13:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• The ninth paragraph down in Production History jumps around a bit too much, with a misleading opening sentence.
• From the Releases section: "He was later told that silence was the Japanese's greatest honor to a film." Japanese's? Is that really correct?
• The paragraph that talks about Kurosawa's influence in Cinematic + Literary Allusions has a couple mistakes.

Here's the first few sentences of that paragraph: "1958 Kurosawa film The Hidden Fortress was also an influence, with the two bickering peasants (who evolved into C-3PO and R2-D2), elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil General wears a kamon, and a Japanese family crest seen in the film is similar to the Imperial Crest. Star Wars borrows heavily from another Kurosawa film, Yojimbo. In both films, several men threaten the hero, bragging how wanted they are by authorities." "The" should be inserted in the first sentence, although I think it reads better like Akira Kurosawa's 1958 film The Hidden Fortress was also...". "elements of the Obi-Wan/Luke relationship and the Darth Vader-like evil General wears a kamon" is not a sentence, there should be a comma in place of the "and", and probably a "who" after General. I don't think the comparison between Darth Vader and the General is made very clear also. Also, the last sentence could be (but this one I'm not too sure, so it could be dead wrong)"...several men threaten the hero, bragging how they are wanted by the authorities".

Excellent job. I look forward to Episodes V and VI soon.--Dark Kubrick 17:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I just copyedited some of the later sections and left a SGML comment query about the last part of the first paragraph of the Novelization section, which somewhat confuses me. I haven't had time yet to scan the upper parts of the article, but will do so later. — TKD::Talk 18:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The sentence has been removed as I did not put it there and I'm unsure of what it was trying to convey. The Filmaker 21:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I made some followup edits and reworded that sentence so that it made sense. TKD, please check the top three sections of the article for me when you get the chance. — Deckiller 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made a start. Going to continue tonight. — TKD::Talk 10:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Finally finished my copyedit. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article, well written and referenced. Hello32020 21:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom. -- Wikipedical 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Overall, this is a good article and well cited as well as a good read. The only thing I can see that might need looked at is there are a few citations that are in the middle of sentences not following punctuation in the first half of the article. Other than that it's well written. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Anyone have issues with the prose? — Deckiller 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the article a lot; it seems very well done (and I'm of course a fan of the movie as well). Nicholasink 02:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's looking good. I hope reviewers will give it the fine-toothed comb it deserves, as one of the most important movies ever. At the moment the second paragraph in "Production" concerns me, because it seems to be expecting "in-knowledge" of the movie and to some extent reads like trivia. "Luke Skywalker's character changed from a 60-year-old General to a member of a family of midgets." OK, but he didn't end up as a midget, and I'm not told that. Same goes for some of the other sentences in that para. Other possibilities include repositioning this information to later in the article, as it's very early. Also, I'm not sure why the characters, and The Force (Star Wars), aren't wikilinked here. –Outriggr § 06:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah; it might be excessive information. I believe The Force is linked in the article, as are the characters (most likely above the section, as usual policy is to link it the first time it appears). — Deckiller 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comments Concerned about the prose among other things...specifically:
  • Why not link 1977 to 1977 in film instead of the year?
  • Moreover, Lucas disliked the studio system... I'm not entirely sure why "moreover" is used there...I don't see the continuity from the previous sentences.
  • Agree with Outriggr's comments about the assumption of prior knowledge in "Production". The Force was initially conceived as the Kyber crystal <-- wikilink the Force here (first appearance). Han Solo needs one as well.
  • ...the left leg shattered down into the plastic of the left foot, stabbing him in the foot. Hmmm...I think I know what's trying to be said here, but how about "the left leg piece shattered down through the plastic that was covering his left foot, stabbing him."? Also, C3PO isn't wikilinked here when it probably should.
  • After Tunisia, production moved... --> "After finishing filming in Tunisia, production moved..."
  • Para that begins with Lucas clashed on the set... includes quite a few unsourced statements.
  • ...playing scenes out in master shots, then flowing into close-up coverage. Might want to wikilink the terms on film technique.
  • Hirsch and Chew "leap-frogged" by one grabbing reel one and the other grabbing reel two; whoever finished their reel first would grab reel three. When the Tusken Raider (played by stuntman Peter Diamond) attacks Luke, the editors ran the reel back and forth, causing the Raider to raise his weapon several times.[2] Huh? Confusing (even more so if the reader is unfamiliar with Tusken Raiders).
  • During production, the cast attempted to make Lucas laugh or smile as he often appeared depressed. No transition? Perhaps a new para would be better here.
  • Mark Hamill's face was injured in a car accident, which made reshoots impossible. Here's where a "moreover" would be helpful in connecting this to the previous thoughts.
  • four shots that Lucas declined --> "four shots that Lucas ultimately declined to use"
  • The dogfights provided a pacing that the script, storyboards, and Lucas could not describe. Huh? Could not describe?
  • these early animatics were later created with CGI effects in the production of the prequel films "created" gives the wrong impression there. This clause is also unneccessary IMO.
  • The voice of R2-D2 was said to be the most difficult sound to develop "said to be" is pretty weaselly.
  • was achieved by placing a miniature microphone into the regulator of a scuba tank, followed by Burtt breathing through the mask itself. "followed by" and "itself" make the sentence quite awkward.
  • He originally wanted Orson Welles to speak for Darth Vader. Darth should be linked earlier than this.
  • It had been suggested that C-3PO... Suggested by whom?
  • I stopped here, but I have a feeling the entire article may need a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone not familiar with the films. Gzkn 12:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with most of your suggestions (a couple invite redundancies). Nobody should've had to go through this if I had spent more time on the article or asked for someone else to double team the article. I'm embarrassed that I let The Filmmaker nominate this article without giving it a more detailed treatment. — Deckiller 18:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, I took a look at your corrections and your edit of "four shots that Lucas declined" is definitely much better than the clumsiness that I had suggested. :) I knew something was wrong with ending just with "declined" but I didn't know how exactly to fix it... Gzkn 13:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• The main sections to worry about now are the reaction and allusion sections, which I have barely touched. I'd rather have someone else work on those sections at least at first, since I've clearly lost my edge on this article. — Deckiller 18:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with the sentiments above; some Eyeballs with Freshness™ need to review the whole article for copy. I have contributed some, and don't mind continuing, if the dynamics of the process stay collaborative. –Outriggr § 02:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You did not cross off some other items that were addresed (actually, all have either been addressed or done in a manner that improved the points made). — Deckiller 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. First, there's a blatant breaching of the rules in the failure by at least two supporters (Outriggr, The Filmaker and are there more?) to declare that they are significant contributors to the article, i.e., before its nomination. I must ask that their text here be disregarded until they insert such a declaration.

• Second, although the copy-editing of Deckiller et al is in evidence, more polishing is required. Here are random examples.
  • "nineteen" but then "14". The usual way is to spell out single-digit numbers, and numericalise all others.
  • At the opening, "is" vs "was" conflict.
  • "a genre that drew relatively low numbers at the box office"—Remove "relatively".
  • "Lucas would later propose that"—Can we go easy on the journalistic backslung conditional? "Lucas later proposed that" is perfectly good.
  • "(ILM). ILM"—close repetition.
  • "Eventually, 20th Century Fox approved a budget of $8,250,000. Furthermore,..."—"eventually" is not encyclopedic: it's just too vague, and begs for precise chronological information. "Furthermore", like "in addition" and "also", is usually an unnecessary back-link. Just remove it.
  • "were constructed based on"—"on the basis of" would be more idiomatic.
  • "Special Edition"—no title case for WP titles. Tony 04:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...I think the Filmaker stated above that it was a self-nom. Outriggr has yet to support the nomination and he did say he contributed to the article... Gzkn 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks Tony; I'm always afraid to remove passive "would" wording, but at least you laid down the law here (reminds me of the Shadow of the Colossus FA in a way). What do you mean by the is vs was and the no title case points? — Deckiller 04:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm reminded yet again why I stay away from FAC. I contributed to the article only after it came to FAC, as a result of the article coming to FAC. Tony, I know you prefer armchair commentary, but I tried to help, and I thought that was within my right without having to disclaim it. It's a goddamn wiki. Is this an article improvement and featuring process, or is it some kind of absurd game? I'm not saying another bloody word in FAC again. Bye. –Outriggr § 05:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Did I miss something? — Deckiller 05:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I think you probably read, above, Tony's accusing me of a "blatant breaching of the rules" (as you Gkzn noted, which I saw later, I have not "supported" the article). Regardless of his being incorrect on a number of counts, the result is the same—"no good deed goes unpunished". What's the point of pitching in to improve articles in the face of an environment like this? The pedantry around here leaves me cold. –Outriggr § 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, very sorry if I made a mistake. I just looked down the edit history and thought I'd seen you before the nomination date. My fault. Tony 08:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. –Outriggr § 02:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll just add, Tony, that I wouldn't have gotten quite as excited if Joe Blow had said something like this to/about me. As you're a FAC regular, and people seem to listen to what you have to say, it is quite different to have you accuse me of a blatant breach of the rules. It is especially ironic that I specifically wrote above, "I don't mind continuing, if the dynamics of the process stay collaborative." Next thing I know, I'm hit with this. Anyway, it's apparent who carries the weight around here—thank you Gzdn for being objective enough to note the facts—as the silence in the face of such assertions is rather deafening. On to other things, indeed. –Outriggr § 02:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Rudjek 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Let's all be friends :) — Deckiller 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Yay! :) Gzkn 03:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but these wonderful editors above have been nice enough to address so many comments that I've become lost to what has been done and what has not. I'm going to state now, for the Wikipedia record that all of the above comments have been addressed. However, should any user be able to point out a particular comment that has not been addressed. Please do so. Thanks guys. :) The Filmaker 03:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd still like to see mention that several works have influenced Star Wars and vice versa in the lead. My point is that Cinematic and Literary Allusions is a big and important section and as the lead is supposed to be a concise overview of important points in the article, it deserves to be given some mention, unlike other smaller sections like Novelisation or Soundtrack.--Dark Kubrick 03:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I've added a little diddy to the lead, but somebody should check my grammar. ;) The Filmaker 23:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks, but could you just add that the films and books Lucas drew upon were based in fantasy and myth/folklore? Right now that half-sentence is kinda vague.--Dark Kubrick 02:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I added two examples, one for each. The Filmaker 03:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Alright, I'm satisfied.--Dark Kubrick 21:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The Wookieepedian 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wiki-newbie 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This article is well-written; it has numerous, properly formatted references; and is very informative while remaining concise. —Cliff smith 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support after a copyedit. I left only one minor query in the "Cinematic and literary allusions" section regarding a sentence that I didn't fully understand. I think that it's matter of only one word, though, so it's not going to prevent me from supporting. — TKD::Talk 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nat91 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I must apologise for making a couple people help audit the prose of this article. It was my reponsibility, and I failed to complete my task before FAnom. Either that, or it proves that solid copyediting (or just prose enhancement in general, less the technical issues) must be a team activity. — Deckiller 00:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. These two sentences make no sense: "The third negative review, from Stanley Kauffmann of The New Republic, where he states, "His work here seems less inventive than in THX 1138.", is now offline.[28] The consensus for the film reads "The action and special effects are first rate." First off, why do we refer to "the third negative review" as if there are only three in existence? Second, what does it matter that the review "is now offline"? Third, what does that lest sentence, about "the consensus for the film reads", even mean? Andrew Levine 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree completely with your comments. I have rewritten the offending sentences. I'm surprised nobody else attempted to do so.-Hal Raglan 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Really great article. I'm smiling with delight! Gran2 14:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacteria

Self-nomination. Bacteria are a core topic in biology, medicine, biochemistry and biotechnology. The article is intended to be a wide introduction to a general audience, but still contain sufficient detail to be comprehensive. TimVickers 04:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support:Bacteria are central to all of life. This article does a good job of getting across all the important information about bacteria, while not inundating us all with useless academic specifics. This article was also fully peer-reviewed. There are too few featured articles that cover important, core topics; this is should be one of the few. Adenosine | Talk 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Some of your footnotes end with a few spaces and then a period and/or a comma. These need to be cleaned up. This is in excellent article, but it's probably too technical for the average reader. Rlevse 11:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the people with the technical knowledge often just read over the difficult phrases without realizing it: please point to some phrases and then we could fix them; I find this very important for FA.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support; an excellent article, with plenty of clear, informative SVG diagrams. The only comment I have is that I'd like to see articles (even just stubs) for Thermoproteus, Sporohalobacter and Anaerobacter, the only red links in the article. Laïka 11:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. TimVickers 17:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article, you've done a really good job. ← ANAS ^Talk? 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support, nice work again. I don't know the territory, but I know Tim will speedily fix anything that comes up. Tim, can you add ISBNs to the books in Further reading? Also, those darn cite templates are giving you double punctuation after the article names - can you remove the extra (I hate the cite templates :-) ? Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Double punctuation fixed throughout. Hope Tim doesn't mind... Fvasconcellos 16:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course I don't mind! Thank you very much. ISBNs added. TimVickers 16:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support per Adenosine. Fvasconcellos 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. No questions. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Great article. Nat91 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support --WS 18:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - great work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support — A good, solid, well-referenced article that is nicely written and an interesting read (although I found a few of the sentences are somewhat awkward.) I only had a few issues:
  • This sentence needs some work: "However, using gene sequences to reconstruct the bacterial phylogeny and this indicates that bacteria diverged first from the archaeal/eukaryotic lineage..."
  • Please use &mdash; in: "taxes - for"
  • "A spectrum of interactions with human hosts can be shown by any one bacterial species." I'm a little unclear about this sentence. Does it mean that every bacterial species can be hosted by a human, and that it will also show a variety of interactions?

Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem sentences re-worded for clarity. TimVickers 00:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Some of the earlier captions could use some wikilinks. Also Anton van Leeuwenhoek could be expanded and some context provided for the users who inevitably look at pictures first :) Gzkn 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Captions expanded and linked. TimVickers 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support another excellent article, Tim! If the 'average reader' can't understand this, the average reader is in trouble. The only substantive suggestions I have are to add a bit more on bacteriophage, as they're only mentioned as a means of mutation at the moment (come to think of it, I'm not actually sure how big a role they play in nature) and to add at least a mention of chemosynthesis. Also a couple of prose comments:

• In the lead: "pathogenic bacteria cause infectious diseases. These diseases include..." - why two sentences? Most of the text is very well-written, but these two sentences have a very simplistic/'written for children' tone.

Rewritten. TimVickers 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• "prokaryotic life consists of two very different groups of organisms that evolved independently" - a casual/clueless reader could get the impression that they're two totally unrelated lineages with no common ancestor. Also, the 'origin' section could use a mention of the approximate time of divergence between bacteria and archaea - this estimate must exist, even if the error bars are enormous.

Added time of divergence and reference (error is 700 million years!). TimVickers 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:Flagella.png could use a more descriptive caption, especially given the tone and target audience for which the rest of the text is written. Opabinia regalis 01:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded caption. TimVickers 03:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Great Article. However Myxococcus is red-linked. Tennis DyNamiTe ^{(sign in)} 03:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaced with link to Myxobacteria. TimVickers 03:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Another great article. Extensive, well referenced and illustrated --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 03:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well-cited, comprehensive and well written. Deserves the star. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'm been watching your work on this article in the last week or so, what an amazing improvement. Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. There are nine paragraphs without sources at the end, including a couple of paragraphs without any sources. In general it looks pretty good, though. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional references added for last section, now we have 120 sources! TimVickers 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Great, full support, then. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support: Tim has done an excellent job addressing all concerns with this article. I see no reason it wouldn't qualify. Josh 19:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support A strong article on a broad subject.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 21:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, a very well-written and comprehensive article. Nice work. --Coredesat 05:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Wow!! I have been working on this article for a while and I click in and find there is suddenly a lot of action. I have noted here some points from my to do list for the article:
• The referencing was severely lacking and that is now comprehensively resolved. There are so many now I wonder if they could go right down the bottom and then move the further reading and links up so they can be seen? Perhaps the Further reading should also contain "Brock Biology of Microorganisms" a text that most microbiologists think of as standard issue and most likely the first port of call for someone wanting to read more about bacteria. I can do this.

Excellent point a major omission! I added Brock, but we should keep the order of sections as this is standard format for Wikipedia articles and conforms to the manual of style. TimVickers 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I added Brock... you corrected my formatting. Thanks. --Azaroonus 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the "groups and identification" section could be turned on its head and focus on the current methods first and the history can take a back seat (or my preference - be deleted). The discussion page and other places focus on the taxonomy issue with much debate and it would be nice to have a clear section here.

Please don't delete all the history, but condensing it a little could be useful. TimVickers 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section now and I think that it covers the topic more comprehensively. Thanks for your editing, Tim. I still want to add a sentence on environmental DNA sequencing for identifying the "uncultured majority". BTW: Do you think that there is overlap in the identification section with the Growth section? I have never been --Azaroonus 06:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for your additions. There is some overlap certainly, since the two areas do overlap. However the growth section concentrates on the process of bacterial growth, while the identification section concentrates on the use of selective growth in identification. TimVickers 15:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• In my suggestions for the article outline on the discussion page I suggested there should be three sections that deal with the topics more of less covered in the current "Interaction with other organisms" and "Bacteria in Industry" sections. I suggest: Bacteria and Human health, Bacteria and the environment and Bacteria and industry/science. I think that it is important to add a section that addresses bacteria in the environment, especially with respect to their role in global nutrient cycling. The importance of this issue is outlined in the introduction but the text does not really follow through. I do not know what the time scale is on these reviews (it seems to be going quickly) but I can put something together on the weekend.

Some more material on nutrient cycling to the "Mutualists" section would be good, it would be great if you could add that to the article. However, section headings should not repeat the title of the article and I'm afraid I don't see why re-arrangeing these sections would be an improvement. Could you explain why this would be better? TimVickers 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The article already details the structure and function of bacteria but to humanity the significance of bacteria relates to their role in the global ecosystem and their occasional tendency to cause disease. I think that that warrants treatment that is not covered by the scope of the "mutualists" section. If using the word bacteria in a sub-heading is against Wiki conventions what about Ecological significance. I will write something anyway and let's see how it looks.--Azaroonus 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Despite these comments, I think that this is an article worthy of FA status. The new images are really nice, too!--Azaroonus 12:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. TimVickers 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The FAC notice would be better at the top of the discussion page. I've made a significant change in the lead, so that the bigger, less technical picture appears first. There's a troublesome statement in the lead: "However, most of these bacteria have not been characterised, since only about half of the phyla of bacteria have species that can be cultured in the laboratory." Are you sure that the inability to culture in the lab is the only reason? (Tension between "most" vs "only about half", plus I balked at it from common knowledge, anyway.) It's looking excellent, but I've only looked at the lead thus far. Tony 15:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A great improvement to the lead, thank you Tony. If you can't culture a microorganism in the lab that is a huge impediment to characterisation. The only other information you can get is distribution in the environment from sequencing its nucleic acid from environmental samples. There is no contradiction since even if a phyla has representatives that can be cultured, this may still leave the majority of bacteria in this phyla uncharacterised. I've changed this from "since" to "and" which removes implication of one being a consequence of the other. TimVickers 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral, tilting towards support. Great overall (excellent referencing), but some minor problems. There is a bit of inconsistency with the serial comma, but that can be easily fixed. Also, there are occasional grammatical mistakes and a few punctuation errors (double check the usage of colons and semicolons in the article). Occasional run-ons (ex: These differences in structure can produce differences in antibiotic susceptibility, for instance vancomycin can only kill Gram positive bacteria and is ineffective against pathogens such as Haemophilus influenzae or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.[48] | These structures can … such as macrophages,[54] they can act as … in cell recognition, as well as aiding … formation.[55] | Many types of bacteriophage exist, some simply infect... | Bacteriophages can contain genes that contribute to its host's phenotype, for example...). AZ _t 00:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the errors you listed and any others I saw. I standardised to a restrictive usage of commas - if I missed anything please point the remaining errors out. TimVickers 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks good now, if there is any other problems I find they'll probably be minor and I'll address them myself. Great job! AZ _t 22:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support one of the best written articles that I've read. This SEM Image:SalmonellaNIAID.jpg is brilliant. I shilled for Helicobacter pylori a bit, hope it's ok -- Samir धर्म 04:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent work Tim. Gzkn 05:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I know some don't see it as important, but I do feel it important to put the dates each web based article was last accessed. If they're there it increases the likelihood of finding them through the Wayback Machine should they become dead - if a link becomes dead and cannot be found, it would have to be removed. LuciferMorgan 14:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is because the publication date provides this information for all of the modern articles. However, this isn't applicable for the historical papers with no PMID, so I've added the access date for these. TimVickers 16:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• I've added some images, added something about actin polymerization, removed some external links... and now fully support. Great job Tim!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hot support. Crucial article, very high quality for those microscopic little buggers :-) (they make my patients ill, but they also produce the recombinant drugs I expect to be prescribing when I grow up). JFW | T@lk 17:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• comment I think the History sections needs to be harmonized in a direction or the other with that at Microbiology. Circeus 16:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your comment. Do you think there is too much overlap between this article and another article? TimVickers 18:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you mean that you think that the history section in Bacteria should be merged with the history section in microbiology then I agree. I like the origin and evolution section but I think that the "history of bacteriology" has a more fitting home in bacteriology or in microbiology. Comment added 15:31, 2 December 2006 by Azaroonus

• Support A ray of light — beautiful, comprehensive treatment of an absolutely fundamental topic of biology. Willow 12:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support A fine article. Onco_p53 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Announcement and request for feedback

An editor has made some major changes in the structure of the section of the article dealing with interactions with other organisms. As stability is a criterion in FAC, I wish to proceed by consensus. Which do people think is the better version? Version 1 or Version 2 TimVickers 21:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• I prefer version 1; comparing mutual to pathogenic bacteria seems better than "significance to the environment" and "to human health"; this could be seen as almost arbitrary; bacteria behave exactly the same in wild animals to in humans; virtually everything under "to human health" could apply equally to a dog or a cow or a snake. Also, the stubby, one sentance paragraph "Bacterial diseases are important in agriculture, with bacteria causing leaf spot, fireblight and wilts in plants, as well as Johne's disease, mastitis, salmonella and anthrax in farm animals." has been added since then. I personally do not like this paragraph at all as it is short, and the phrasing ("are important") implies that farmers want their plants to succumb to fireblight and wilt! Laïka 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Back to the earlier version (1), please. This is not an improvement. Sandy (Talk) 22:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• I prefer version 1. Making a distinction between 'good' and 'bad' bacteria seems more logical to me than the arbitrary distinction in the other version. (Perhaps there's a few facts from version 2 you can incorporate without affecting the flow too much, though.) Also, "are important" is weasly worded IMO. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
• Revert to version 1, please. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Version 1 seems clearly better than the present Version 2, both in writing and logic. For example, the triple repetition of "Significance of..." in the section titles seems — uninspired, while the facts of the new sections are chosen and laid out haphazardly, with poor integration with (and development from) the rest of the article. Nevertheless, I think I might appreciate Azaroonus' intentions, e.g., targeting the text more precisely at what an average lay-reader might want to glean from the article. I also feel that a slightly longer article might be OK, provided that it were written and organized with utter clarity and inexorable flow. Unfortunately, version 2 is not that article, as Azaroonus himself would likely admit. Moreover, this doesn't seem like a good time to be making rash major re-writes. I suggest that we discuss our long-term goals and concerns for the article over at Talk:Bacteria over the next few weeks and consider what changes we might make to reach them. Eile mit Weile and all that, Willow 22:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• With respect to Azaroonus, strong preference for version 1. Version 2's edited sections are redundant (both with each other and with the rest of the text) and have a distinctly human-centric perspective that is not entirely encyclopedic in an article about bacteria as a general subject. I could be persuaded that there's a use for a specific subarticle on bacteria in human health that would be even more layman-oriented (if there already is one I don't know about, can it be more prominently linked in the interactions section?), but that's largely immaterial to this FAC nomination. Opabinia regalis 00:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points Opabinia and Willow. I tried to deal with this by choosing Version 1, but adding the material in version 2 to a new article called bacteria and human health. I put a link to this new daughter article at the top of the Pathogens section. The current article is now not substantially different to the original, but of course incorporating the edits and suggestions from the reviewers here. TimVickers 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I also prefer Version 1. As much as I like "larger picture" enviromental information, I really hate the overt focus on human health. Would a section on vetrinary health be significatly different? Wikpedia generally is biased towards a focus on humans (look up any organ or general bodily process), can we please avoid continuing this trend in a major topic on non-human lifeforms? --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• It appears I'm late to the party, so I'll make it quick: Version 1. Fvasconcellos 13:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• This article is now a FA, thank you all for your help and suggestions during this process. TimVickers 05:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota

When I started working on Minnesota a year ago it was completely unreferenced and in pretty bad shape.[9] Since then a small team of dedicated users and I have gotten the article to GA status and we now believe the article is at or above the standards needed for FA. It has also undergone a successful peer review. I have also run the auto peer review script and completed any items that needed addressing. No other US states are good article or featured status, in fact most are in pretty bad off, so considering adopting your own state. I appreciate your feedback, I am more than willing to quickly address any concerns you may have that can prevent this from becoming a FA. Others that can address concerns: User:Appraiser, User:Kablammo, User:Gopher backer, User:Jonathunder. Self nomination. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Quick comments Looks like we're on an "M" spree here at FAC. Heh. Anyway, I skimmed through it and noticed mixed ref style used in "State symbols". Also, doesn't ref 85 cover what ref 86 refers to? Finally, I feel as if "State symbols" is one of those areas that should use a pretty template instead of a list. Is there one available? Gzkn 07:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It was a list as of last month, however I preferred the list format so the loon picture could be added. There is a template, its pretty ugly (ex:California ) and I am not sure it will accommodate the notes about. Do you have an example table style?-Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • removed all refs but one, not sure how that bare link slipped in there. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm...I'll see if I can work up a pretty table for the state symbols section in my sandbox. I'll let you know... Gzkn 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Object Refs need consistency, see 50 and 51 especially--use cite php/web format. Also, what does "Minnesota had 36 companies in the top 1000 U.S. publicly-traded companies by revenue in 2006." mean? Are these companies that have an office in MN, a national headquarters in MN, or what? Rlevse 14:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The reference is the Fortune Top 500 list, but they do the top 1000 for states see FAQ here: [10]. I'll fix those two refs. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • 51 was a dupe and 50 has been fixed. I will check the refs for consistency, I won't move them all to cite web immediately but I will start working on it. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 16:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
      • OK, let me know when you're done. Rlevse 21:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
        • User:Atomaton is converting all the refs to citeweb and is nearly done. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 23:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I just finished off a few he missed, it's now complete. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Nice work. Just one comment. The "See also" section links three articles. List of people is ok. The other two are not that significant. The article has this template {{tl:Minnesota}} at the end which provides all the quick links. So, is that section at all needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point -- as you mentioned, the first link is already in the footer and the second two aren't significant to the main article. I removed those links. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 13:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Good job. My only suggestion would be to try and get rid of a couple images. In certain places (between "Climate" and "Protected lands" as well as "Economy" and "Industry and commerce" and to a lesser extent in "Transportation") images are literally stacked on top of one another, and this at my modest screen resolution (1024x768). I think you can easily take out two or three pictures with no detriment to the article, since many of them are more "scenic" than necessary to illustrate a particular topic. Anyway, I wouldn't oppose on this qualm alone, I'll just ask that you give it some consideration. -- mattb @ 2006-11-28T17:38Z

Thanks! I have started a section on the balance of images on the Minnesota talk page and I will try and weed out any unnecessary images. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support Agree that a few pictures removed would help, but otherwise well-written, well-researched, quality article. Deserving of FA status. ReverendG 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004)

Next nomination from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones. We're fairly confident that this article passes WP:WIAFA, and we're putting it under consideration now. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I fixed a redlink to Aroostook, Maine that should have been to Aroostook County, Maine. Not sure if this was a typo or if someone thought Aroostook was actually a town, but I only caught it because I used to live near there and knew that it was a county. Someone may want to go through the article and check the other redlinks just to make sure that something similar isn't happening there. MLilburne 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. It could use another look-through to ensure it is well-written, but all in all it looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support to the max! íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article, looks like featured material to me. Hello32020 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like how it's written, very professional-like. Kyo cat^{¿Qué tal?•meow!} 21:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Like most of the other Tropical Storm articles, this one is well written. Just as one suggestion, though, I would use some pronouns in the lead instead of "Bonnie....Bonnie...Bonnie...". Otherwise, it is a good article and deserves FA nomination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hairchrm (talk • contribs) .
• Support solid article, written to the point, and well referenced. — Deckiller 04:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - yet another great work from WikiProject Tropical cyclones. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: per Dwaipayanc and Hello. Great work WPTC: another splendid article. —Cliff smith 03:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above. CrazyC83 04:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)