Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 If the article you are submitting has had a previous FAC nomination that has not already been archived, use the Move button to archive the previous FAC discussion.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

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Domenico Selvo 1.2 2012 Summer Olympics bids 1.3 Compass and straightedge constructions 1.4 Amateur radio 1.5 Primal (video game) 1.6 Andre Agassi 1.7 Knights Templar 1.8 Mathematics 1.9 Clinical depression 1.10 India national cricket team 1.11 Peter Griffin 1.12 George Washington (inventor) 1.13 Final Fantasy XII 1.14 Japan 1.15 Mayan languages 1.16 Tenacious D 1.17 Gwoyeu Romatzyh 1.18 Eye (cyclone) 1.19 Wild Arms 1.20 A Series of Unfortunate Events 1.21 The Ballad of the White Horse 1.22 Encyclopædia Britannica 1.22.1 User:Titoxd 1.22.2 User:TimVickers 1.22.3 User:JoeSmack 1.22.4 User:Opabinia regalis 1.22.5 User:Stbalbach 1.23 Metabolism 1.24 Pinkham Notch 1.25 Atomic theory 1.26 Liberal Movement 1.27 Characters of Final Fantasy VIII 1.28 Aquinas College, Perth 1.29 Vincent van Gogh 1.30 Actions along the Matanikau 1.31 Andrew Van De Kamp 1.32 FairTax 1.33 Adore (album) 1.34 Ridge Route 1.35 Ipswich Town F.C. 1.35.1 Michaelas10's support 1.35.2 Oldelpaso's support 1.35.3 Tony1's objection 1.36 Dean Smith 1.37 Endgame tablebase 1.38 RKO Pictures 1.39 Wyoming 1.40 Archaeopteryx 1.41 Great Barrier Reef 1.42 The Orb 1.43 Kansas Turnpike 1.44 Armament of the Iowa class battleship 1.45 Cholangiocarcinoma 1.46 Doolittle (album) 1.47 Halo 2 1.48 Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon 1.49 Central Coast Mariners FC 1.50 Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America) 1.51 1998 Pacific hurricane season 1.52 BackupHDDVD 1.53 Battleship 1.54 Battle of Shiloh 1.55 Coronation Street 1.56 Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia 1.57 Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia 1.58 Norte Chico civilization 1.59 History of Sheffield 1.60 Mendip Hills 1.61 Holden VE Commodore 1.62 Verbascum thapsus 1.63 Joseph Goebbels 1.64 Backgammon 1.65 Freak Out!

[edit] Nominations

[edit] Domenico Selvo

About two months ago I decided to make this article, my first FAC, about a random, obscure person who is not often written about. After digging through more Venetian history books than I'm willing to count, I wrote this entire article. I refuse to comment on my own writing style, so you can read for yourself if you think it is well-written ;-). This article has undergone an extensive peer review where four very kind users spent a lot of time weeding this thing out to bring you what you see today. The maps are courtesy of User:MapMaster who kindly made the after map (1084 CE) at my request. I hope you all think this article is worthy of FA status and I will address any concerns you might have here. Thanks a lot, JHMM13 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent article, overall; a few minor quibbles, though:
  • The "See also" section should be eliminated.
  • "References and notes" should be changed to "Notes" and "Bibliography" to "References" (or "Further reading", if those works weren't consulted, but I'm assuming that they were).

    Before I change anything here regardng the see also and the references, could you please consult the discussion about this in the peer review? This is something I've been a bit confused about. I think it is important to have a "List of Doges" link, but I can't think of where to put it in the article. There's a mini discussion about the names of the sections. I initially had it as "Notes" and "References," but a question regarding the fact that there are notes mixed in with the citations was brought up and this is sort of what we agreed on. I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

    The standard usage I've seen in most FAs (and the one recommended by WP:CITE) is to use "Notes" for all footnotes, regardless of whether they're citations or discursive notes. If there's no other listing of references, this can be changed to "Notes and references"; otherwise, the (auxiliary, typically alphabetical) listing of references is under a separate "References" section. (There are some variations on this, of course.) The main thing is to avoid having a "Bibliography" section, since it's ambiguous as to whether the works listed in it were actually used as sources for the article, or are merely further reading material that may not have been consulted.

    Got it. I agree with you, and I've changed it.

    As far as linking the list of Doges: why not just add it to {{VeniceDogeSuccession}}? That would seem a more natural place for a purely navigational link of that sort; explicit "See also" sections tend to look like afterthoughts, and tend to be avoided in FAs. Kirill Lokshin 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Done and done. Someone else suggested this to me before in the peer review, but it must have slipped my mind. Thanks! JHMM13 03:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Ok, support from me, then. (You might want to double-check the punctuation in the footnotes, incidentally; I would have expected a comma rather than a period after the author's name. It may just be a style I'm not familiar with, of course.) Kirill Lokshin 03:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • The dates in the section headings would be neater if parenthesized, I think; i.e. "Peace and prosperity (1071-1080)" instead of "1071 - 1080: Peace and prosperity". Kirill Lokshin 01:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

    Done...good idea! Thank you for the "excellent article" comment :-D. JHMM13 01:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. All my concerns were addressed at the peer review. There is some room for improvement in the illustration but realistically, this is probably as good as it can be. Mangojuice^talk 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 Summer Olympics bids

Self-nomination – This article is under the scope of the Olympics WikiProject, of which I am a member. Yet I only started to contribute to its improvement after a peer-review request was open for it, by another member. Since then, I've been the main editor and I believe this article has reached a very high level of information and, in general, it follows the style guidelines and the criteria needed to reach featured status. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Since I was one of the editors who got the article up to GA status, I'll abstain from voting, but will just comment and say that the article is a great overview of the 2012 Olympic bids candidate cities, like London and Paris, and of the progression of the bid in general. In all, the article is well sourced and contains a whole bunch of encyclopedic information in a logically progressive and flowing way. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐  20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I participated in the peer review and I am currently copyediting the entire article. It has shades of poor prose and layout here and there. On the whole, this is a very visually pleasing and informative article that has a lot of potential. However, a subject like this needs a little more referencing that it currently has. I'll try to highlight specific "trouble spots" that you might want to address:
  • "They were granted the right to use Olympic symbols and the label "Candidate City" (or "Ville Candidate") in their campaign literature." This sentence should have a citation to the official IOC rules regarding this.
  • "Originally, London was seen lagging behind Paris by a considerable margin, however this started to change with the appointment of Sebastian Coe as new head of London 2012, on May 19, 2004." This sentence needs a reference if it is not covered by your wrongc ref.
  • "After the Games, the East London region will have of one of Europe's largest urban parks created in decades and will be home to the Olympic Institute, a centre for sports medical centre and a place to study the Olympic ideals." This sentence is hard to rework considering I don't really know the details. In general, could you try to get the fluff out of these cit bids sections? Make them read like a Wall Street Journal report, not an IOC bid pamphlet ;-D.
  • "The bid committee also proposed the London Paralympic Games, which would be as important as the Olympic Games." Same thing here. "As important as the Olympic Games?" According to whom? Who says the Olympic Games are important or not important? This phrasing has to go unless it's specifically stated in the official literature of the London bid in which case you'll have to put quotes around it and mention who said it from a NPOV.
  • "London was considered by many to be second favourite for the bid after Paris, but last-minute intense lobbying by the bid team in Singapore probably swung the votes in their favour." By whom were they considered? If you find a source for this sentence, I suggest rewording it to this: "...but intense lobbying by the bid team at the later stages of the bid process in Singapore swung the votes in their favour." Careful with words like probably. Remember: According to whom?
  • "Following the success of the bid there were further developments and announcements, including reactions to the security fears highlighted by the 7 July 2005 London bombings." This definitely needs a citation and you need to figure out where you want to put it. Don't leave it sitting out there on its own as a one-sentence paragraph. Avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Paris's plan was very compact, with the placement of several sports in the Northern and Western Clusters and the Olympic Village between the two clusters." What do you mean by "compact?" I mean, I know what you mean, but reword it better and say that they were going to be placing several sports facilities in the...
  • "The plan had gained high technical merit due to the city's well-maintained transport system, its ability to handle a peak number of tourists with plentiful accommodation, and very high support for the bid among Parisians and the nation. I understand the first two for technical "merit," which should be referenced, but I don't understand how the last one fits in. The whole thing needs to be referenced. If you have access to the IOC review of Paris, that would suffice, but be sure to say in the prose "...high technical merit from the IOC."
  • "Paris also planned to build temporary venues for some sports that can be moved and reused elsewhere after the Games (dubbed "pre-cycling")." Reword and reference this sentence.
  • "Its rich cultural and Olympic heritage were also emphasized. All of these items placed Paris in a very strong position." Now don't get me wrong, I like this sentence because it is, obviously, true. However, my problem with it comes with the use of the words "rich cultural...heritage." Paris is a fantastic city with a rich cultural heritage, but the way you word it in this sentence makes it seem like the other cities didn't have this going for them. Reconsider it unless you can find a direct IOC review reference.
  • "Madrid, Spain's capital city, beat out Seville to represent the country on the international stage." I'm sure it's easy to ref this one. It might be something people want to look into, so give them the news story.
  • "Madrid presented an above average bid, with almost all sports contested in three clusters, all within very close proximity of each other." I don't really get this sentence. What were the sports contested? How did that relate to the bidding process?
  • "The public transport infrastructure would have been able to accommodate the hundreds of thousands gathering in the capital, and this positive situation was coupled with the use of renewable energy and hydrogen vehicles." This sentence needs a reference and it needs clarification. Do other cities in the world not have renewable energy vehicles? I live right next to NYC and I know I've seen some driving around.
  • "Madrid had also organised several high-quality European and World championships, accounting for the city's hosting experience. The bid gained resounding support among the city and national population and was helped with the support of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, who was lobbying votes for the Madrid bid." These two sentences are POV and need citations and a reworking.
  • "New York City was selected over San Francisco as the sentimental favourite during the United States competition, in 2002." Could you please reference the "sentimental" favorite part?
  • "The Olympic X Plan was the main concept proposed by the NYC2012 Bid team: two primary transportation lines would have strung the several individual clusters in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn together." You have to really reconsider using so many colons. They can really begin to hurt prose if you overuse them. Was it at any point officially referred to as "NYC2012" or is this your shortening? You should call it by its full name or "the New York City bid." Why is "Bid" capitalized? Was this the entire plan?? If not, rework the whole section to make it flow better.
  • "By combining existing world-class facilities such as Madison Square Garden, Yankee Stadium, Central Park and the National Tennis Center, with new venues like the Brooklyn Arena, Greenbelt Olympic Equestrian Park, and Olympic Regatta Center, the city hoped to show that it was worthy of holding an event of such magnitude." Who says MSG is world-class? Can you provide wikilinks to these other proposed facilities? If not, can you reference them? Can you really consider Central Park a "facility?" Rework the rest of this section to remove fluff and stick to official terms. Don't just call the plan "X." Get more refs.
  • "Moscow's River Plan called for every single competition to be staged within city limits, making this one of the most compact proposals ever." Again the word compact I find weird in this context. The proposal wasn't compact, but the layout was, right?
  • "Despite the high support from the entire nation and invaluable experience..." This phrase in the Moscow section irks me. It sounds like more fluff from Moscow's concession speech.
  • "Similar allegations were repeated by several members of the Paris 2012 delegation." This needs a citation. In general with a section as controversial as this one, you need lots and lots of references that clearly point to verification of the claim. Right now there are scattered citations that have been used throughout the article and are probably general sources. Try to find the specific stories here and source them.
  • "Probably the most controversial move by London 2012 was its initiative to offer incentive packages for participating athletes (including free flights, economical accommodations, food and vouchers for long distance calling) and immediately after announcing it, London 2012 withdrew it. This U-turn was probably a result of President Jacques Rogge raising concerns because it could have started a "bidding war" if not withdrawn." Needs a citation.
  • "Paris 2012 also claimed that the lobbying by Tony Blair would have broken IOC rules." Needs a citation.
  • "This was strongly denied by Downing Street." Needs a citation.
  • Shape up the whole last section just in general. I like the referencing you have done so far, but there are some one-sentence paragraphs in there and it's overall clumsy. Get someone to copyedit it once you've finished. Just one last note: perhaps you should have responded in the peer review before bringing it here and this list might have been shorter ;-). JHMM13 01:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compass and straightedge constructions

I think it is a very good article Tomer T 14:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Virtually no inline citations.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - not adequately referenced. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, fails 1c. PhoenixTwo 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur radio

This article has gone through some extensive content editing and cleanup. It has a lot to offer: there are dozens of specialized, in-depth sub-articles that branch off from the main article. I think it's a great addition to WP and helps illuminate a little-known hobby enjoyed by thousands of people worldwide. -- LuckyLouie 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Numerous uncited statements.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - fine article, very decent stuff, but not adequately inline cited, in my opinion. More generally, a section called "Getting started" makes the article sound like a how-to guide, which isn't allowed. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primal (video game)

I've nominated the article because I think it have a lot of information about characters and the locations where the game takes place. And it is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable - which means, it meets the requirements of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.Cheat2win 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Please read the criteria page fully. No references, no fair use rationales, fair use galleries... This is not even close. --- RockMFR 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose well written, nope - "The richly developed demon realms give the scenery the effect of being important"
• comprehensive, nope - Where's the reception section? Where's the gameplay section?
• factually accurate, nope - there are 0 references
• neutral, nope - "action scenes with dramatic and well timed background."
• stable, I'll give you this one

Also a trivia section, no fair use rationales, insufficient lead sized lead, insufficient sized history section, a section with five words etc etc. M3tal H3ad 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• comment. No fair use rationales are provided for any of the images. There are also large galleries of 'fair use' images that need to be removed or justified as to how they fit with wikipedia's fair use policy: "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. ". —JeremyA (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, lacks a references section. PhoenixTwo 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Added a references section. Cheat2win 01:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andre Agassi

I nominated this because It's a very well written article and It should be on the front page. Derrty2033 02:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Insufficient inline citations - some are also not formatted correctly and are external jumps. Don't wikilink solo years like 1948, one sentence paragraphs are not "well-written", POV - "classic matches in this period, most notably against his old rival Pete Sampras and popular Australian Patrick Rafter", trivia section, and a Featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's best work - more then one picture is needed. M3tal H3ad 11:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Even though I'd love to see an article about a male tennis player featured, I have to oppose per above. Nat91 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment You may want to withdraw this nomination, and put the article through a peer review and then nominate as a Good Article. Neither is required for featured articles, but those processes do help to get an article up to FA quality. As it is now, there are problems with the prose, citation-formating, and the number of citations/references (as noted above). -- Pastordavid 02:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knights Templar

• 2004 FA nom

Self-nom. This is an article about a major subject, the medieval order of the Knights Templar. The article went up once for FA back in 2004, and has been substantially expanded since then, with a MilHist peer review, and is currently at Good article status. The article still gets occasional POV wars, primarily because there's a lot of misinformation about the Templars out on the web, and there are also modern groups which claim to be the current incarnation of the medieval organization. But wherever possible we've stuck with high quality references which have been extensively double- and triple-checked, and done our best to make this article a hub which spokes the majority of the more speculative stuff out to other articles which we're working on separately. Assuming that featured status is approved, I'd like to see the article featured on October 13th of this year if possible. That will be the 700-year anniversary of the famous events on Friday, October 13, 1307, when King Philip IV of France had many Templars simultaneously arrested, charged with heresy, and eventually burned at the stake. I hope you'll find the article both informative, and interesting. :) --Elonka 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — looks quite good; I'll come back with some comments and suggestions later. — Deckiller 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The second paragraph is very unfocused. Any article that references large tracts of land needs a Monty Python reference ;-) But overall, the article just doesn't feel right... too much in the narrative style with exposition about the situation.Balloonman 07:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Object mainly on the brilliant prose requirement. Grammar wonks are likely to hound any article that begins (not a sentence or a paragraph but) a section with however. That's one of numerous places where the prose could use a good copyeditor. Suggest withdrawing this nomination and routing through WP:GA and Wikipedia:Peer review. Durova^Charge! 21:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Many FACs are initially opposed because of 1a; several (note the plural) copy-editors give the article a runthrough, and the oppose is withdrawn. It is not a situation that requires withdrawal and another peer review. I'll see if I can find time to give it a look; I do agree that the prose is a little flowery in some areas. — Deckiller 00:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support It does look good. (aside, to Durova, it has gone through WP:GA. Cary Bass ^demandez 21:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the prose needs some work, but a couple of good pass-throughs could probably fix that. The bigger issue for me is length: I don't know that this article is written in a good summary style. In particular, given that there is a main article (History of the Knights Templar), I wonder why the history section is 3,000 words -- it seems a bit much if there is another complete article on the section. Further, given the traffic this article probably receives - and the edit wars noted above, I wonder how stable the article is. On the plus side - great work with citations and pictures. -- Pastordavid 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. -- I think it's in good shape. I'll keep my eye on proceedings here, and am expecting to voice support once concerns about prose have been addressed. There's some mixing of American and Commonwealth spelling: 'Rumors', but 'organisation', for example, which should be sorted. — BillC ^talk 00:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics

Its already a GA (good article status) and rated A class from the Mathematics Wikiproject. Why is this still not a Featured Article? --Khunter 23:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, why is it not an FA? Lack of inline citations, I'd assume. PhoenixTwo 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a couple of inline citations recently, bringing the total up to 20. Does it need still more, do you think? Rick Norwood 00:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

JHMM13 nicely pointed out what I was hinting at below. PhoenixTwo 22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object. It's not about how many inline citations you have, it's about the proper amount of inline citations in a specific article. Right now, I see no evidence to verify many of the claims made in most of the history section, all of the inspiration... section, much of the mathematics as science section, etc. etc. Here's an example of text that sorely needs a citation and probably needs rewriting: "The case of Kurt Heegner's work shows that the mathematical establishment is neither infallible, nor unwilling to admit error in assessing 'amateur' work. And like astronomy, mathematics owes much to amateur contributors such as Fermat and Mersenne." You should refer this to peer review first. JHMM13 01:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• The "Common misconceptions" section is probably too weak: little coherence and too much attention is given to pseudomathematics. The subsection on the connection with physical reality touches an interesting point (philosophy of mathematics) but its topic is similar with "mathematics as science", so they should probably be merged. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. Rick Norwood 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clinical depression

Nomination & Support --Shines8 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm afraid to say, nowhere near FA calibre. The presence of article-improvement templates and the recentish GA delisting should be signs that an FA nomination is unlikely to succeed. Areas of improvement for the article :

• Many of the sections are single-paragraphs stubs where considerably more can be said
• Significantly more inline citation is required
• A number of sub-sections are basically POV and uncited: for instance, the more controversial of the suggested treatments will require balanced accounts.
• Two sections are long lists. I think the 'symptoms' section justifies a list (even a long one): this seems to be the standard presentation of clinical symptoms (other users may disagree). However, the causes section needs to be written in prose.

I suggest this nomination is struck, these issues addressed, and it's submitted for GA and then peer review before renominating it here. Regards, The Land 23:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Worked on many inline citations (now 50+); made some paragraphs into subsections, inorder to avoid it looking listy. --Shines8 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: because of the importance of the topic, let's have an expert review the article first. until then, I propose that it be submitted for GA review. 69.140.155.148 02:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - There is too much work to be done on this article for listing it as FA. Many sentences need citations; entire sections have no inline citations whatsoever. It definitely needs expert review to bring it up to GA- or FA-level. Aleta 23:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] India national cricket team

Has just had a PR. Made a few minor tweaks. With the world cup going on this seemed like as go a time as any. Buc 17:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - there is quite a lot of POV there and the history section, among others is not up to scratch. There is an extreme inbalance towards post 2000, and the 1960-1970s are hardly covered. All the politics etc, is also not covered properly. Indian cricket is quite hard to do properly, because there is so much political stuff going on, apart from just the cruicket. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Griffin

Peter Griffin is a famous cartoon character. I think the article deserves to be featured. Best of all, it has no tags like POV, Cleanup, etc. TheBlazikenMaster 20:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - no in-line citations. Alientraveller 20:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - as per above, and also no references. References can easily be found - just see the dozens at the bottom of the Bulbasaur page. JameiLei 21:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Oh yes there are!!!!!! TheBlazikenMaster 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are citations, but not inline citations Slof 23:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I've noticed the article was hurting, namely, no concept and creation section as required for fictional characters, as you can see from FAs and GAs like Padme Amidala or, more comparable in the subject matter, Homer Simpson. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Blank the article. Start over. The "Peter did this, Peter did that, Peter did this, Peter is Catholic, Peter is Jewish, Peter is a homosexual, Peter has AIDS, Peter is a genius, Peter is an idiot, Peter has been in every situation imaginable" style of this article might be good for a fan wiki, but not here. Sorry. --- RockMFR 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The "blanking the article" comment was a little insensitive and extreme RockMFR, try to be a little considerate. It does need a lot of work the information is there, good job collecting it. It just needs to be sourced thoroughly and copyedited. After this FAC, you can try the League of Copyeditors after you source it. If you're in a hurry (they usually take months to get through an article) maybe you can just read other character articles that are highly ranked and compare the article against it and go from there. Quadzilla99 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know it was idiotic of me for nominating this so early. I know getting it into good article will take almost half a year, or more. I apologise everyone for my idicy of putting it up without going through the article first. TheBlazikenMaster 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for apologizing.--Rmky87 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Washington (inventor)

This was my idea for a perfect April 1 article — a switcheroo of a major historical figure for a quirky nobody. So, in the Main Page box we could say, "George Washington was an early inventor of instant coffee, and ensured a full supply to soldiers fighting at the front lines", and similar sorts of absurd, but vaguely historical-sounding things. Well, that was the idea, anyway. It's hard for me to judge if in its short development time this article has really reached near FA quality, but I've spent way too much time on it in too short a space not to submit this now. Of course, any further improvements would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.--Pharos 07:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looks nice. I haven't any major things prepending FA status (and I agree it'd make a fantastic MP one for April 1!). there are a number of little things that should be fixed,though:
  • Multiple uses of the same ref should be collapsed (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once about that)
  • Full dates (i.e. in references) have to be linked for User preferences to work properly
  • Maybe the patents should be listed on 2 or even 3 columns? They take an awful lot of screen space.
  • There are a number of one-line paragraphs. They have to be refactored.
  • The parallel to Ouspensky looks unnecessary and distracting to me.
• Overall, though, I'll be glad to support after those are tweaked. Circeus 21:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've now cleaned it up per your suggestions.--Pharos 02:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Made a few tweaks to the refs, and I think it's all good now.Circeus 15:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good job!! Do you subscribe to newspaperarchives.com? BlueLotas 05:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I do indeed have university database access; not sure if it's through that company. It would be impractical, I think, to keep decades of newspapers in my basement.--Pharos 05:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My feeling is that it's too short to be a FA. It could also conform closer to {{Biography}}. -Malkinann 08:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Congratulations on writing such a comprehensive article in such a short space of time. The output is exceptional, and deserves FA status. Bensmith53 10:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Can we mention that he invented this after the Boston Tea Party? (In this case, several decades after the Boston Tea Party, and not as a direct result, but we can leave that out.) My wise-guy comments aside, here's a couple questions: "There have been several "American Party"s in history — in 1920, former Texas governor James E. Ferguson actually ran under that label." This is confusing. I don't think this is a fact about George Washington at all. Similarly, is the following quote from a Brooklyn polician about George Washington, or James Ferguson? Other than that, I don't think I have any major concerns. Even though this is a quirky article about a relatively unimportant topic, it can get to FA status. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 22:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've relegated Ferguson to a footnote. The Brooklyn politician was talking about George Washington, in a joking context that reflects the color of the time period. I hope it's clear that the nomination of Washington was entirely non-serious, and that Washington didn't even know about it till the New York Times reporter tracked him down.--Pharos 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy XII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. This article has been the result of a couple months of "chipping away" by no fewer than ten members of WikiProject Final Fantasy. It is the second most well-referenced Final Fantasy title article, as well as one of the most comprehensive. Hopefully, all that remains are minor issues that can be weeded out via this discussion (peer review yielded only one response, which was taken care of). Although there is another FA nom up for this WikiProject, it is more narrow in its contributors' scope, so it is not a major tax on our manpower, in my opinion.

The history of the article is a little complex, so I'll skip over that. If the rest of the team who worked on this article could co-nom below and add their comments, that would be great. As usual, the no spoiler tags for the plot section is part of the WP:FF's belief system since last year, and part of the compromise being struck on the project talk page. Images issues should be all set, so the issues should (hopefully) only come from the prose itself. Let the discussion begin, and thank you for taking the time to add your voice to this nomination. — Deckiller 23:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Co-nom and support, a lot of work went into this article and it's quite impressive. I, too, am hoping that this FAC will be a good opportunity to improve the article. If this passes, it will be the fasted turnover from release to FA status of any FF game so far. Axem Titanium 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Things...

• The comma in the second sentence seems unnecessary (I might be wrong).

• I'm a bit of a comma fan, so it doesn't really bother me. — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Is the serial comma the standard for this article? It jumps back and forth.

• Yeah; that should be standardized. I've always found the serial comma more intelligent and professional and less old school, but that's just me :) — Deckiller 02:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Should "Gambits" be capitalized?
• Should "Summoning Magic" be capitalized?
• Should "License" be capitalized?
• a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" exists and is the key energy might sound better as a mysterious phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy or even a phenomenon known as "Mist" is the key energy.
• Last sentence in the "Battle system" section seems awkward (again, I might be wrong). --- RockMFR 02:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm feeling a little sick right now (24 is really starting to make me frustrated, plus the brown bread), so I might not get to them quickly. — Deckiller 02:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I capitalized "Gambits" for now so it's uniform, and I reworded the mist part. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 03:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I just took a look at my game and decapitalized "summoning magic", "gambits" and "licenses" because they're common nouns. "License Board" remains because it is proper. Axem Titanium 13:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I believe all issues have been addressed. Feel free to find as many as you can! Correcting fixable errors on FAC (except the nonsense 5MB source/spoiler tag/plot length debates) not only improves the article, but helps everyone spot these mistakes at a later date.— Deckiller 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment You may want to double check your fair use rationales. It seems the ones of the screenshots are refering to cover art in a couple places, and I'm not sure what the intent of those lines was. Jay32183 19:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've fixed what I saw. Anything else? Axem Titanium 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That was the only problem I could find. So I support. Jay32183 03:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• The ref for the "Square Enix Product Blog" bit at the very end of the article used to point to some blog source or some crap like that. That site referenced another site, which in turn referenced the SE blog. I've changed it to point directly to the original source, but I can't read Japanese. Someone with that skill should check to make sure the original blog actually says what we are saying it says, and maybe try to get an author name. --- RockMFR 05:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• During my edits, I updated the Game Rankings score, and in doing so, I noticed that FFXII has dropped to the fourth highest FF game, so I removed the bit about being second highest. It's not really noteworthy anymore, so you might want to move the Game Rankings score into the table and then merge the remaining stub paragraph up or down. --- RockMFR 05:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I wish my articles would look like that. Some random stuff I found:
  • ..are complete and will be available soon - specific date?
    • Sorry, the ref doesn't give a specific date.
  • "Final Fantasy XII US - fansite" and "Final Fantasy Wiki" - Remove per WP:EL as non-reliable websites. Done
  • ..a special Final Fantasy XII package, which included - "which contained" would be better in this context. Done
  • ..brand in Japan - ..Japanese brand. Done
  • ..commercially available on March 7, 2006, in Japan - ..commercially available in Japan on March 7, 2006. Done
  • No need in an English indicator for the second external link, as the first is the only non-English one. Done
  • ..it was the fourth best-selling PlayStation 2 game of 2006 - was? Done
  • ..most released and upcoming Final Fantasy games up to the newest releases - "up to the newest releases" redundant. Done
  • Any references for the Japanese and Australian release dates? Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not a fan of including references in infoboxes, unless it's controversial, but I'll definitely find some to include elsewhere in the article.
      • I've interlaced the things I've tried to address within your comment above. If you have anything else to add, please do. Axem Titanium 21:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks good enough. It's impressible the polishing of FF pages (all of the main series are GA or FA...). igordebraga ≠ 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support. Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because of lack of notability of the topic. 69.140.155.148 02:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Not a valid objection. All articles that come to FAC are assumed notable enough to avoid FAC being another AFD. Jay32183 03:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My sentiments exactly. That said, do you have any actionable objections? Axem Titanium 03:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If I remember correctly, IPs can't participate in these discussions anyway. — Deckiller 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
        • There's nothing in the rules up at the top of the page about it, IPs just never seem to make it to this page. (No vote, I want to play this game sometime so I'm not reading the article) --PresN 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Well done, PresN. That's the kind of self-control I wish everyone had. Axem Titanium 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support after reading it over several times, it looks like FA material to me. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

previous FAC

After User:John Smith's asked me to reconsider the old nom, I've decided I might have been a bit too hasty in removing it, so I'm going to give it a fresh nom. Raul654 19:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as before Fg2 20:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as before. I made the self-nomination last time. John Smith's 21:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support great article, but you are too ambitious by only nominating it on the FAC. The GA people would perfectly give help... igordebraga ≠ 22:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Numerous unsourced paragraphs. Seven in the history section alone. Zleitzen^(talk) 22:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Concerns dealt with.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zleitzen, during the previous FAC lack of citations was raised. The person that complained, SandyGeorgia, tagged everything she felt needed a citation. Furthermore there have been no complaints about this. So please add some citation tags where you think they are needed - thanks. John Smith's 22:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 13 paragraphs in the history section, seven of them go without citations. Going down the page, there are many more uncited paragraphs. To add citation tags to every piece of information that goes unsourced in these paragraphs would make a mess of the page. Here are examples of unsourced details from each section to give you an idea;

• "The Nara period of the eighth century marked the first emergence of a strong central Japanese state, centered around an imperial court in the city of Heijō-kyō, or modern day Nara."
• "There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
• "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration."
• "The Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages."
• "Post-war Japan has been heavily influenced by American pop music, which has led to the evolution of popular band music called J-Pop. Modern Japanese music generally uses Western instruments, scales and style."
• "Golf is popular in Japan, as is auto racing, the Super GT sports car series and Formula Nippon formula racing."

-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations have been added since my concerns above. But there is still much uncited material on the page. Near the top of the history section it reads: "Despite early resistance, Buddhism was promoted by the ruling class and eventually gained growing acceptance since the Asuka period." Without citation. Rather than me chase around picking individual examples, it might be better to give you some time to ensure that every claim is attributed to a source from "Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth." to "The fusion of traditional woodblock printing and Western art led to the creation of manga, a typically Japanese comic book format that is now popular within and outside Japan." -- Zleitzen^(talk) 01:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More unsourced statements below:

• "…with a secret ballot for all elective offices."
• "The liberal conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has been in power since 1955, except for a short-lived coalition government formed from opposition parties in 1993"
• "The Prime Minister of Japan is the head of government. The literal translation of his Japanese title is "Prime Minister of the Cabinet". The position is appointed by the Emperor of Japan after being designated by the Diet from among its members, and must enjoy the confidence of the House of Representatives to remain in office. The Prime Minister is the head of the Cabinet and appoints and dismisses the Ministers of State, a majority of whom must be Diet members. Shinzo Abe currently serves as the Prime Minister of Japan."
• "Japan's court system is divided into four basic tiers: the Supreme Court and three levels of lower courts. The main body of Japanese statutory law is a collection called the Six Codes."-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have dealt with those points. John Smith's 18:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More in the foreign policy and military section. These could really do with reference notes elaborating on the issues alongside simple source details.

• "with the US-Japan security alliance serving as the cornerstone of its foreign policy."
• "It is also one of the "G4 nations" seeking permanent membership in the Security Council."
• "Japan contributed non-combatant troops to the Iraq War, but has subsequently withdrawn forces from the region."

*Territorial disputes paragraph - no citations

• "The forces have been recently used in peacekeeping operations and the deployment of Japanese troops to Iraq marked the first overseas use of its military since World War II."-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Citations added. I do not see a need for more references there - readers can follow the citations or the blue-links. John Smith's 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

These are the last statements that I believe need citations:

• powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories.
• Recently, Japanese companies have begun to abandon some of these norms in an attempt to increase profitability.
• Unlike previous recovery trends, domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth.
• The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) conducts space and planetary research, aviation research, and development of rockets and satellites. It also built the Japanese Experiment Module, which is slated to be launched and added to the International Space Station during Space Shuttle assembly flights in 2007 and 2008.
• Most public and private schools require students to take courses in both Japanese and English.
• Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice.
• The earliest works of Japanese literature include two history books the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki, and the eighth century poetry book Man'yōshū, all written in Chinese characters.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

All done. John Smith's 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The citations have been very well provided, I have checked them all and they correctly ensure the verifiability of the statements. I would still like a citation for "powerful enterprise unions, the guarantee of lifetime employment in big corporations and highly unionized blue-collar factories". Remember that references can be quite expansive and descriptive. If an issue is quite detailed such as the above, it may be appropriate to create a long reference note that combines a number of references. When that is verified satisfactorily I will remove my oppose.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 03:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Last citation added - other text trimmed. John Smith's 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Help me out. I'm looking at India, a featured article. In the lead section there are three paragraphs; only one has a citation while the other two have no citations. In Etymology, one paragraph has citations; the other does not. History: five paragraphs, zero citations. Government: three with and two without. Politics: no citations in the two paragraphs. Military and Foreign Relations: one paragraph out of three has a citation. Geography: no citations in three paragraphs. Flora and Fauna: Here for the first time the cited paragraphs outnumber the uncited 2:1. Economy has a citation in each paragraph. So does Demographics. But Culture, six paragraphs long, has no citations, even though it makes clear claims. Here are some:

1. India's culture is marked by a high degree of syncretism
2. Many classical dance forms exist, including bharatanatyam, kathakali, kathak, kuchipudi, manipuri, odissi and yakshagana. They often have a narrative form and are usually infused with devotional and spiritual elements.
3. The Indian film industry is the world's most prolific
4. India's national sport is field hockey, although cricket is the most popular sport in India.
5. Chess, commonly held to have originated in India, is also gaining popularity with the rise of the number of recognised Indian grandmasters.
6. Traditional Indian family values are highly respected, although urban families now prefer a nuclear family system due to the socio-economic constraints imposed by the traditional joint family system.

In this comparison, Japan fares very well. Fg2 07:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been discussed on this page previously, there is generally no requirement for citations in the lead, as the lead is supposed to summarize the remainder of the article. Raul654 16:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

India passed FA in 2004. It wouldn't pass now due to lack of sources and will be added to Featured Article review. Standards have risen significantly, and it is imperative that every detail is sourced for the credibility of featured articles and wikipedia as a whole. If a major piece of information has absolutely no attribution - how are we meant to know it is reliable? We're not. Unreliable articles should not be evidence of wikipedia's best work. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not imperative that every sentence be plastered with a footnote. Please stop picking out random fact statements to be cited and provide some valid arguments for your suspicions of factual inaccuracy. A citation doesn't make a statement true; good reviewing does, and what you're providing here is not a good review, just nitpicking. So put that footnote checklist away for a second and come up with some detailed criticism. "I didn't know that" or "someone might not know that" isn't a valid reason to demand a page number from a book you're not going to read anyway.

And before we descend into the murky depths of interpretation of verifiability policies, let's take look at two the of the examples given as "unreliable" statements:

• There is universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices. – This is obviously a common knowledge and hardly something unique to Japan. Has anyone questioned it? Would anyone (not wearing a tin-foil hat) have reasons to question it?
• Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration. – It's another way of saying "Japan has launched stuff in to space". It's like asking for a citation of "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia".

The rest of the claims also appear to be mere random statements that all seem like common knowledge to anyone with a minimum of experience with Japan and Japanese culture. They're statements that don't really qualify as anything "likely to be challenged".

Peter ^Isotalo 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Peter. Zleitzen, I think you are maybe being too strict. You cannot have a citation for everything - it is too much to expect and would look quite ridiculous. As far as I can see all the important points/paragraphs have citations. And as Peter said a citation doesn't make something true. I could add a citation for a book that existed, but if I gave a random page number that has nothing on that, how would you know? Apart from the unlikely circumstance someone had that book and decided to look it up, it would fly in under radar. So please be more reasonable in requests for citations. Generally the ones that are here support all the other points - it would be quite mad to have to repost them for every point made. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it common knowledge that "Japan has universal suffrage for adults over 20 years of age, with a secret ballot for all elective offices"? that "domestic consumption has been the dominant factor of growth"? That "Japan has also made headway into aerospace research and space exploration"? That "Ryūkyūan languages, also part of the Japonic language family to which Japanese belongs, are spoken in Okinawa, but few children learn these languages"? I didn't know any of these pieces of common knowledge, and when I asked my children, who read wikipedia a lot, they didn't know either. If an article stated "Wikipedia is a popular online encyclopedia" you can bet that people would want a citation for that as well. And they'd be right. An article that represents the best of wikipedia would have these facts cited to verifiable sources. An article that doesn't verify these facts is not the best wikipedia can offer I'm afraid. Sorry.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 15:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree that specifically the first statement does not need citations. Do we have a source to say that adults over specifically 20 years old can vote, and that it's done with a secret ballot? Look at Voting age, most countries seem to set the voting age to 18. If we are to make assumptions, we would assume that the voting age in Japan is also 18. Also, even in the US, it wasn't until 1971 that the voting age was lowered to 18. But I can't find that other statement about "headway" into space anymore. Maybe it's been revised since it was first mentioned. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out there is a citation for the voting age being 20. I removed the "headway" statement about aerospace because I wasn't sure - I changed it to focus on space exploration and gave a citation. There also citations for the Ryūkyūan languages bit. So all those points have been addressed. Guys, please always remember to look at the article when you talk about it - things change fast. John Smith's 15:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support a superb article that deeply discusses all aspects of the country. Its a useful resource for all readers and it deserves to be recognized.Yaanch^Speak! 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as before. Lovely nice big article. BilabialBoxing 00:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose as before. Problems with WP:MOS, problems with lengths of certain sections, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).
• Support as before. --WoodElf 06:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as before. --Endroit 06:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm wondering why people are so ready to support this FAC. There are clear WP:MOS problems. One good example is the recurring blank space in the History section, something I've fixed myself several times. It comes back almost every other day, and at the time of my comment here, it has re-appeared.[1]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs) 06:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

This recurring blank space in the history section does not happen with Mozilla 2.0. With IE6, this happens only when the browser is broad enough that the image Image:TodaijiDaibutsu0224.jpg comes just after the {{Infobox Country or territory}}. --Kusunose 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to bump my screen resolution down to 800x600 before the blank space will disappear when my browser is full-screen. Surely, we expect your average IE users to use better than 800x600 resolution by now? Aside from that, there are other WP:MOS problems, too. Some of the sections toward the bottom, the ones that often get ignored, are a bit short - for example, the Technology section, considering the impact that Japan has on the global consumer electronics market, the Technology section doesn't even mention consumer electronics. And there is still a lot of unnecessary use of parenthesis, especially when done in order to spam Japanese terms only to define them in parentheses. And I just noticed that some of the books used as references do not list their ISBN numbers, and a big chunk of the Climate section does not have any inline referencing. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using 1024x768 - I haven't had any problems. John Smith's 15:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know if it's because there's too many pictures or because too many are right aligned, but there are an awful lot of large blank gaps in the text. Aaron Bowen 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a high resolution computer screen so it's even worse for me. Aaron Bowen 09:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone over it again, making a few changes - I can't see any gaps. Have you tried making adjustments yourself? John Smith's 09:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Blank spaces? BLANK SPACES??? How low can we go to oppose a FA candidacy because of blank spaces???? PS. How come I dont see any blank spaces on my comp? --WoodElf 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The blank space issue seems to be browser-based, and at the moment seems to be gone. This is a problem of image placement, and to note, I don't see the same blank spaces on any other FA class articles (not that I've looked at all FA class articles), so those articles must be doing something right as far as image placement is concerned. However, I still think there are some WP:MOS problems, the short lengths of the often-ignored sections in the bottom, especially that the Technology section doesn't even mention Japan's consumer electronics industry; some of the books in the references do not have ISBN; and there's some unnecessary usage of parenthesis. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

ISBNs are not that important - academically they are never required, so I don't see why an FA should fail on that basis. As to length of "often ignored sections" - remember that in the past the article was much longer. One of the largest complaints was it was too long. So they had to be cut down - the headings on top redirect people to the full article. The Japan page is to give people a summary of the country, not tell them everything there is to know. There is so much stuff the article could go into but really there is no space for all of it. John Smith's 16:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The length of the Japan article is good, for me at least, and I think the editors have done really well. There's an exceptional amount of information in a very condensed format which is exactly what the article should convey. Regarding ISBNs, WP:CITE states that "The ISBN of a book is optional." However, If I were writing a featured article, I would opt into to adding them rather than opt out. Having the ISBN makes it a better article - which is the point of the exercise - its also really easy to copy and paste an ISBN into a google search and get exactly the book you were looking for.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 10:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not have access to most of the books, so couldn't say what the ISBNs are - I would be guessing that I was putting in the one that points to the right edition. John Smith's 10:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayan languages

Nom restarted (old nom) Raul654 16:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support More citations have been added to this article, which I am happy to see. It would be nice if they were all cited the same way (why is that so difficult?), but all things cannot be achieved. This is a well-written, well-sourced and at least appears to me as a comprehensive article. I am not an expert in Mayan languages, so I cannot really speak to its comprehensiveness. I greatly appreciate the work that the editors have done to make it more accessible to those of us who want to understand their work. Awadewit 22:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support with Comment - I supported the initial nomination, and am very impressed with the newer version. My only concern (and I don't know if it was dicussed in the archive - there's a lot to go through there) is the high number of single-sentence paragraphs. If these could be condensed with associated text, that would be great. -- Oaxaca dan 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments: I've not waded through the previous nom, but the article certainly seems to have improved for it.

• I think the third paragraph of the lead section could use some work - possibly the removal of the second, third and fifth sentences? These are fairly jargony for the non-specialist. This material (the link with the Mesoamerican linguistic area) doesn't appear to be treated in the 'geneaology and classification' section' - in fact it appears to be contradicted by the statement "Mayan languages as a family are unconnected with any others."

• This is a technical issue a linguistic area is not afamilial unit in a linguistic sense - a linguistic family is a group of languages with a shared ancestor - the languages of the mesoamerican linguistic area do not have shared ancestry but have converge only because they were spoken in the same area - sort of like english loanwords in chinese for example do not imply a shared ancestry between chinese or english. This is very basic linguist so it will be hard to specify in the article without writing very longwindedly.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• You might read the old nomination as there was a rather extensive discussion regarding the technical level of the lead already. Awadewit 17:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've tried to read the previous nom, which sheds some light on it, but I stand by my comment. I think reducing the lead section by a few sentences and expanding the Genealogy or possibly Grammar sections by a few more would make the article considerably better. The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think there are some very short paragraphs that can be merged. However I wouldn't go too far down that road, as short paragraphs are best when dealing with technical material.
• Could the number of present-day speakers be made more immediately clear - for instance, in a table? It's just a thought.

that is why we made the List of Mayan languages·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, that's an impressive table - I can see why it's not in the main article!! The Land 22:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, very impressive article and I look forward to supporting it shortly. The Land 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Avala 16:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Tenacious D

Previous FAC 1, Previous FAC 2

The old nom had many objections which had been struck out or otherwise revised (except Sandy's, which I would like to see addressed). I'm restarting this nom so that people give it a fresh look. Raul654 16:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support --Shines8 21:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gwoyeu Romatzyh

This is a self-nomination. I starting to edit this article (on a Chinese romanization system due to the linguist Yuen Ren Chao) in January, & since then have largely rewritten it. Several editors, particularly User:Ikiroid, have helped by putting in a great deal of work suggesting & implementing improvements.

The article was passed as GA on 19 March. We have followed User:Peripitus' suggestion to reduce the length of the article by moving the detailed description of the system's spelling and tonal rules to a new article, Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. The essentials of this new article are now summarized in the Description section of the main article.

The article has had a peer review. We've followed the reviewer's useful suggestion about the structure of the article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support As one of the editors who helped Ndsg, I can say that the article is ready to be featured. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Support I'm one of those "Several editors", though I really haven't done much editing to the article. After a last look over, I found a couple places that need a citation, and a paragraph that needs one as well. Aim for one citation per paragraph. If those are taken care of, I think it has my support.--Clyde (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've cited one of the two phrases you tagged with "citation needed." You also placed a hidden message regarding OR—specifically, what fact to do you believe is original research? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well a good rule of thumb is one citation per paragraph, which the paragraph in question lacks. As to each sentence...

• "Lin Yutang's Chinese-English dictionary (1972) incorporated a number of innovative features, one of which was a simplified version of GR." Needs a citation about the features, and that one of them was simplified GR.
• "Lin eliminated most of the spelling rules requiring substitution of vowels, as can be seen from his spelling Guoryuu Romatzyh, in which the regular -r is used for T2 and a doubled vowel for T3." How do I know this is how he spelled it? Also, using an uncitied "example" seems to bring OR to mind.--Clyde (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Done --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 10:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I also found that in Description , under Basic forms (Tone 1), the first paragraph is void of a single citation. It is introducing the forms of the language, and there's a lot that could be citied in there.--Clyde (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[outdent] Is it really necessary to duplicate the citations given in the main article, Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh? A clear reference to that article is given at the beginning of the Description section. If you think it's essential to duplicate the refs, I can of course do so! --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 17:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would do it just to be safe. I did it somewhat when I cited IPA...pretend the reader is only looking at the article Gwoyeu Romatzyh, not the spelling page. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: I checked out both pages and neither appears to have inline citations in the sections describing tone spelling changes. It shouldn't be too hard to cite, since it's from the books by Chao inter alia that you've already referenced. However, I don't have any of those books, so you'll have to do that (unless I can utilize something from the article's internet resources). The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

But it's no more difficult to follow a link to the spelling page than it would be to look up a reference to Chao et al! Having gone to the trouble of preparing detailed colour-coded tables (now in the new article) making everything perfectly clear, what purpose would be served by sending the reader back to Chao? The new Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Description is supposed to be a summary, isn't it? If we start duplicating all the citations in the summary, eventually we'll end up with a carbon copy of the details we wanted to get rid of in the first place.

Or so it seems to me. It's getting late, & I may be getting a bit tired ...

BTW It's simply not true that Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Tonal rules has no inline citations. It has one, referring to 2 books by Chao & 1 by Simon. Given the subject-matter, that's more than enough! Gwoyeu Romatzyh#Tonal modifications refers to the other article: if you prefer, we could replace this with a copy of the footnote from the other article.

Actually, this whole discussion raises an interesting point of principle. By presenting a summary of the Description we're in effect making the main GR article self-contained. The next question is: Where does the interested reader who wants to learn more about spelling & tones etc go to get further information? If we only give direct references to Chao, Simon et al., the reader may never get to see all our useful work in Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh at all! To prevent that, we say "Main article: Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh" at the top of the section. If, having read our attempt to explain everything there, he or she wants to check our sources, all the citations are given in that second article. That to me seems sufficient. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! The description section was great as it was. I don't want you to go about expanding it or cutting it apart. Keep the description page as a summary of Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. Just simply add a few citations from the books. We can keep the citations that refer the reader to the spelling article too, it's just that we want these facts individually sourced. It is a bit redundant to cite both articles on the same fact with the same source, but that is the preferred method. Look! I've already added a citation, which was in Spelling in Gwoyeu Romatzyh. You simply need to just put a few more of these in the section. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 14:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Done I think I've now achieved a judicious balance of external citations & links to the GR Spelling article. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. See above.--Clyde (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eye (cyclone)

Yes, yet another article by WikiProject Tropical cyclones. However, this is not your typical FAC, as this isn't a storm article, but rather deals with the meteorological background information behind the "eye of the storm". It currently is a GA, it had an archived peer review, and a WikiProject review. While you can "blame" Runningonbrains the most for the article, as he is the primary contributor, I've worked a fair bit on it as well, so this can be called a self-nom. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Good in places, but a couple of points. The opening line contradicts the last three subsections regarding the idea that tropical cyclones are the only storms with eyes. Perhaps 'Hazards' and 'Other Storms' could be expanded a little. All the citations seem to be from good sources and are well put together technically, but in my own (humble) opinion one citation for two whole paragraphs isn't enough, and there are a couple of these in this article. Even if both paragraphs are form the same source, I think you should still put it in to make it clear, otherwise a reader may wonder where you got the info from. Great images and image captions (oft overlooked). SGGH 08:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, with some strings attached. Does Other storms need so have all of the subsections? An example for Project Stormfury might be good, though it's not necessary. The first paragraph of formation could use a source. Also, has there been any papers released in the last year with any better information regarding the formation of the eye? How it forms is pretty important, and the source provided is from 2006. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. -- as a scientific article, I still maintain that metric units should be the primary one. (primary oppose)
2. September 12, 2001 --> wikify
3. Hurricane Hunters is interesting, is there something similar in other parts of the world?
4. "2.1 Detection" -- single section is bad style.
5. 8:22 a.m. CDT --> 08:22 CDT (Add UTC too)
6. I'm curious, the eye is much lower in pressure as compared to the rest of the cyclone. Does that constitute to a temperature drop too?

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment More than willing to share the "blame" with you, Titoxd, as well as Thegreatdr, who also helped quite a bit. As the FAC on Tornado just closed, I suppose I'll get to work on satisfying these demands... -RunningOnBrains 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Will do that on the units. (I see that WP:MOSNUM has the "SI for science" a line above the "source first" recommendation, which was what why I put Imperial first). I'll fix the date and time, and give me a chance to figure out if temperature has anything to do with the eye (my gut feeling says no, but I'll double-check that). Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All the units should be corrected now, except one, which originally was in nautical miles, and was not 100% sure whether to modify or not. (It is listed in nmi (km, mi) format, with kilometers first, though.) As for the temperature in the eye - no, it actually is warmer; most cyclones have a cold-core structure, which means that their strongest winds are in the higher layers of the troposphere. Tropical cyclones, on the other hand, have a warm-core structure, as their engine is completely different (latent heat of condensation), and their inner structure is warmer than the surroundings.^[2] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, the Hurricane Hunters are only used in the Eastern Pacific and Atlantic tropical cyclone basins. There's no equivalent program in other places, AFAIK. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've run into a bit of a snag: It seems that Image:Typhoon Amber concentric eyewalls.gif is not free after all, and will probably be deleted soon. I am trying to find a suitable replacement, but it is proving difficult.-RunningOnBrains 14:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wild Arms

Self-nom. After much editing and a complete re-write at the beginning of March, the Wild Arms article is looking quite good. It was originally my intention to get the article to featured status by late April, which would signify the series' 10th anniversary in English. A popular set of games in its own right, Wild Arms has a small yet loyal fan base who have supported the series vigorously throughout the past decade. This article details the first title that launched a successive media franchise across the world, and has become one of Sony Computer Entertainment's flagship role-playing game series. Currently at GA, the page has also undergone a peer review with all suggestions noted and corrected, as well as receiving several additions added since. The article has nowhere to go but up; any suggestions for improvement are welcome! Nall 06:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a few things I'm noticing while skimming through...

• Second reference (the Everything2 one) - is Everything2 a reliable source? If it isn't, I don't think it would be too hard to source that fact.

I had seen Everything2 listed in other articles, and added it thinking it was appropriate. Upon review I found, nope, it's not! Thanks for the head-up. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to see more internal links in the Story section, if there is anything that makes sense to link. Up to your discretion.

Added some blue paint to that wall of text. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article still has some {{fact}} tags...

This particular fact was added and deleted quite a bit during editing. I was originally going to move it to the album page, but I clarified and sourced it here to avoid further conflicts. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why did Electronic Gaming Monthly give it that score? You've got a ton of text describe the numerical score, but nothing about the review text. The CVG project might be able to help find this.
• Source with the IGN review, not the main IGN game page. Also add date and author.

Coulda sworn I did this earlier. Good catch. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Some of the years link to the "year in gaming" articles. I know there is some kind of standard for this type of linking. Someone else should know.

The CVG Project "Release date" section says thus:

When adding wikilinks to the year the game was released, consider linking to the video game article of that year. For example, use 2007 instead of simply 2007. By following Manual of Style guidelines, try to avoid the surprise, e.g. use "Scramble was released in 1981" rather than "Scramble was released in 1981". Where a full date is known, link to the year itself rather than the year in video gaming, so that user date preference formatting can function correctly. For example, use September 13, 2006 rather than September 13 2006.

Adhering to this info, I made the appropriate changes, keeping single dates while changing the full ones.

• Is all that ref stuff needed for every in-game quote? Just cite the game once and then do all the quotes like Metal Gear Solid. --- RockMFR 23:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed up. Cleaned up about 1200kb of page size, too. Nall 02:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you made some changes to the article earlier, thanks for that. I'll look over the changes you suggested and report back soon. Hopefully I can dig up some info on the EGM score - If not, I'll make some accomodating changes to the section. I also meant to change that IGN link earlier, guess I just lost my edit when browsing other articles. The rest shouldn't be too hard, thanks. Nall 00:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Series of Unfortunate Events

It has been the goal of Wikiproject A Series of Unfortunate Events to get A Series of Unfortunate Events to featured status since the establishment of the wikiproject. The page has gone through extensive revisions, additions, and ommisions, and I think it finally is at the featured status level. It had been peer-reviewed twice, Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events and Wikipedia:Peer review/A Series of Unfortunate Events/Archive 1. The suggestions given in the reviews helped guide regular editors of the page to pinpoint where improvements were needed. The subject of the page is a children's book series contained 13 main books and several spin-off books. It is extremely popular in the United States and Great Britian. Such a great series deserves a great Wikipedia article. I think the article finally lives up to the series. <3Clamster 01:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, not even close right now. Incredibly weak referencing throughout the article, no fair use rationales on images, stubby history section. Good start, but not FA. --- RockMFR 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree, good start, but you need to make some changes.
  • The "Genre" section needs expanding. Other examples of Steampunk are not needed, since the steampunk article would give that information.
  • The "Allusions" section is listy. Expand this into prose.
  • Cite, cite, cite! You have 13 references, that's a good start, but you're going to need to cite more often. The settings, themes, and storyline sections have references at all, and several claims are unattributed. Consult Template:cite web for proper formatting as well - It's not required for FA, but it is well liked by reviewers!
  • A Reception section would be a good addition. Event though this is a series article not related to any one media, there may be info the general reaction to ASOUE.
  • If you want a peer review, now would be the time to get it while the article is still listed and changes can be addressed.

All in all, the article is salvageable, and with some spit and polish it'll come through. Look through some articles like Harry Potter (Not FA, but something to aspire to for book-related franchises nonetheless) for inspiration. Good luck! Nall 06:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - see WP:IDP#Fair_use_rationale for a more information on how to make good fair use rationales. The references need more details - like author, date, and last accessed date. You can look at WP:CITE to find out how to make the references format better. You may want to make the (specific, listy) 'Awards' section into a (more general, prosey) 'Reception' section, in which you can talk about sales, reviews and awards for the series. Look at other children's literature FAs, like Make Way for Ducklings and see how they do things.- Malkinann 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Basically echoing the same things mentioned above, refs need details, one sentence paragraphs make the article fail criteria 1, and the article could use more sources. M3tal H3ad 11:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. I won't repeat what's above, but given that my line of work is directly involved with this series, there's a lot more that can and should be said, and perhaps a lot here that shouldn't (Snicket-as-steampunk is especially unnerving to me, for instance). I'd love to help more with this though in the coming weeks, I've watchlisted in the meantime. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Ballad of the White Horse

This is a brilliant modern-day epic poem that is essentially unknown outside of a few Catholic circles. I think it deserved more recognition. This is the first section of the article:

The Ballad of the White Horse is a poem by G K Chesterton about the exploits of the Saxon King Alfred the Great, published in 1911 AD. Written in ballad form, the work is usually considered an epic poem. The poem narrates how Alfred was able to defeat the invading Danes at the Battle of Ethandune with the aid of the Virgin Mary, and by extension the Christian God. In addition to being a narration of Alfred's military and political accomplishments, it is also considered a Catholic allegory.

(self-nomination) APAULCH 20:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 0 in-line cites, 0 pictures, each section is short and stubby, while it may be a good poem, i do not believe it meets the Featured article criteria - refer to Peer review. M3tal H3ad 12:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per M3tal H3ad. Quadzilla99 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per M3tal H3ad. TimVickers 18:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose needs major work, especially in references. - Anas ^talk? 22:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Per precedent, simple plot summaries of fiction do not *necessarily* require citations, except for quotations. Analysis however does involve citations, and the analysis section here is far too short. If a critical edition has been published, there must surely be more to say about it. Gimmetrow 01:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopædia Britannica

Previous FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Encyclopædia Britannica/archive1

The family of Britannica articles has expanded significantly since its last FAC, as may be seen from the new category Category:Encyclopædia Britannica. New pages have been created on the History of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Propædia, Macropædia, Micropædia, Staff of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Bicentennial of the Encyclopædia Britannica, Dobson's Encyclopædia as well as biographical articles for all major people in its history. The present article is stable, a good article, and has been through a recent peer review. Willow 19:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Titoxd

• Comment. Why is Encarta italicized and Wikipedia not? Both are similar types of publications. Italicize both. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no slight intended, merely a difference in bibliographic custom. As I understand it, the italicized names are used for materials that have been published in a fixed form, whether paper or CD/DVD-ROM version. Wikipedia, as a whole, has not yet been published in that way, so I'd be inclined to keep its name in the Roman font. Wikipedia is still Wikipedia, regardless of its typeface. :) Willow 19:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the way I had understood it was that any substantial collection of documents, whether in online or offline form, was italicized. I don't know... it may be the way I learned it, and I don't have an MLA Style Manual with me right now. (But either way, that won't be an excuse next week, as WP:V0.5 is going to be released. Heh...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 00:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a website. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) there is no mention of websites. The talk page has a question from someone about it but not clear answer. IMO websites are not normally italicized - one solution is using the logic of exclusion: since websites are not listed in things to be italicized, it should not be. -- Stbalbach 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:TimVickers

• Support. Clearly-written and comprehensive. TimVickers 04:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments :*"a 20-volume set with excellent, but primarily Scottish, contributors." I can't see why being Scottish is seen as a modifier of excellence. This could be better-phrased!

You're right, perhaps that's redundant. ;) The goal was to show that the EB grew from being a Scottish enterprise to having international scope; I'll work on the phrasing.

• At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless Scot, I don't think the "My Wife Knows Everything!" joke adds much to the article.

At the risk of being seen as a dour and humourless feminist, I was a little offended, too. But the article definitely needs a pithy anecdote illustrating the EB's popular reputation; that story is the "punchline" anecdote of Kogan's encyclopedic history, as told by one of the EB's longest editors-in-chief, Walter Yust. I'll try to find a better story, and would welcome suggestions from other readers.

:*"Dr. Sutton is exceptional in another way; traditionally, less than 10% of the Britannica's contributors are female." Is this really a tradition?

Perhaps "historically" would be better worded?

:*"Other cost-cutting measures have included mandates to use free photos." Was this a mandate or an instruction? "Mandate" has multiple meanings, another word might be better.

Great catch, thanks! (later) "Mandates" is the wording of the original source, which is indeed ambiguous; to me, it could mean "permission to use free photos" or "instructions to use free photos".

Well, if that's the source, you're stuck with somebody else's poor writing.

:*Reference 17 needs formatting.

• Some other web refs need access dates. (Refs 18, 27, 29 and 34)

:*Further reading needs ISBN numbers

More great catches; I'm on it. Thanks very much for your comments! Willow 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, I may have addressed your concerns; please let me know if other suggestions occur to you. Thanks again! Willow 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:JoeSmack

• Comments. i feel silly saying this, but after the second paragraph i notice a huge amount of commas throughout the prose. after that i couldn't help but notice like 1 to 4 in every sentence. i think at that point some should either be removed to sentences should be broken up into multiple sentences (see User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Sentences). also most any time "However, ____" is used, you can do away with the However part. That is used several times in the article. Same with "over the years", used a few times. Theres a some other similar stuff too, check out User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating_redundancy for more around that. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Also many many of the sentences of this article start with 'The'. If you can remove any of these like here, it would help make the flow seem less repetitive. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your good suggestions, Joe! We definitely want the writing to be as good as it can be. I've fixed all the redundant instances of "however" and "over the years" (I think), and I'm beginning to work on the most awkward sentences. I have to admit, though, that I prefer a longer, 19th-century style, and would have real difficulties writing without dependent clauses; Ernest Hemingway, I'm not. ;) Willow 13:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Sentences with no definite articles sound too telegraphic to my ears and, well, ungrammatical. Is there a guideline somewhere that says we should do that? Preferring Eliot to the more pithy Mr. Jingle, Willow 17:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that a lot of the 'thes' are taken care of and a lot of the 'however's (although imho there are a couple more that could go, i might swipe at em later. I'm not sure i agree about the longer sentences though. There isn't a policy against it that i know of, but heaven sakes, just hit 'find' in firefox and then 'highlight all', and lordy lord are they a huge number in the lot of text. compare it to other FAs and tell me what you think - maybe you'll remain undeterred, maybe not but it feels very hard to commit to me to a sentence that never seems to stop. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I hope you got to work OK; I've got to go soon myself. ;) I'll try to find ways to shorten and simplify the sentences, but please be patient with me. Thanks! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Opabinia regalis

• Comments. Very good; some comments on tightening the presentation (being picky, for obvious reasons ;)

This is a great critique; every FAC should be so lucky! :) Willow 14:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The lead is very long. Nothing presents itself as an obvious candidate for removal, but it might be summarized further: eg, if it were on the main page, a summary of the summary would have to be created.

I've been bold and condensed the lead a bit, but couldn't deal with the citation needed tags since I'm not familiar with the topic. TimVickers 04:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not immediately clear why the thistle logo is related to the Scottish Enlightenment.

Tim should probably answer this, but I believe that the thistle is a symbol of Scotland itself, particularly the flower part that is the EB logo. Did this I'll try to track down when it became the "official" EB symbol. Having trouble; apparently not trademarked? see Talk page

• Even with a citation, I don't know about 'dubious scholarship'; at minimum, it should read 'considered dubious'. The citation seems to be to Collier's Encyclopedia, with a text mention of the 'dubious' description, but I'm not sure another (competitor) encyclopedia is a good source for that characterization.

Collier's Encyclopedia expresses the idea most pithily, but several sources question the scholarship of the EB's early editions. There are several examples where the early EB editors either invented facts or rejected established science in favor of crackpot theories, e.g., Smellie's assertion that tobacco smoking will shrivel the brain to a dry husk, or Dr. Gleig's rejection of Newton's law of gravity (then well established) in favor of the theory that Heracleitian fire causes gravity? No change?

Although this is an oversimplification, I wouldn't cite product A to support the claim that competing product B was once of low quality. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the history of editions, the eminence of the 11th isn't mentioned?

OK, did that.

• 'The unfamiliar organization and the absence of an Index' - we run into the absence of an Index before learning that previous editions did have one (though it is mentioned in the lead). Also, no description of the differences, if any, between a Britannica Index and an ordinary index with a lower-case i.

There's no difference; it was for me a compromise btwn. treating it like a noun (index) and treating like a fourth part of the EB (Index). I'll go with the former. The history of the EB index is a little complicated; it came into general use around (IIRC) the 7th ed. but, in even the 2nd ed., individual long articles had their own index. I'll try and clarify it all; thanks! OK, did that.

• I'm the last to be playing footnote police, but 'universal critical condemnation' really should have a citation of some sort.

OK, Kister will do, since he provides all sorts of quotes. "Universal" is too strong, though. Did this

• Why is the Sherlock Holmes mention so exceptionally notable that it alone merits inclusion in the article? Does the Britannica play a central role in the story? Sorry, I ought to know more than I do about Sherlock Holmes stories.

It's the key mechanism by which the mark, Jabez Wilson, is duped; to keep him out of his office, he's mysteriously hired by an eccentric American to copy out the EB longhand for a healthy salary. Holmes mocks his stupidity, but notes that he'll at least be better educated on subjects early in the alphabet. No change?

You might mention Britannica's central role in the plot, otherwise it sounds rather arbitrarily selected. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Description of the Micropedia articles could focus more on what they're meant to do (give a very brief intro to a topic, I assume, and point to appropriate Macropedia articles for more information) rather than what they don't do.

OK, did that.

• Do they have an official standard on their 'hybrid' English spelling? Do they justify these choices anywhere?

I'll look for that. Having trouble; maybe there's no set policy?

• 'the online version...is updated daily' - what's updated? The daily news-type features? This phrasing implies that some fraction of the core encyclopedic content is updated daily, which seems unlikely.

I need to check up on this as well. They do accept corrections at any time, I believe.

• Along the same lines, I think more could be made of how radical a change the continuous revision policy was. I think most people today would read 'check twice every ten years' and think that was a ridiculously low rate.

OK. The prior policy was to not change the encyclopedia at all until the next edition was released, usually ~20-30 years later. Even then, many articles were carried over intact from the earlier edition, e.g., from the 7th to the 8th. Did this

• Systemic bias section seems biased. One could make the plausible counterargument that the Britannica's main audience is Western, so it's unsurprising that it covers Western topics, which are more likely to interest its readers, in more detail. Particularly the article lists seem crufty to me (and, depending on how fast those revisions happen, might get out of date ;). Does Kister (the cited reference) explicitly make this argument that Britannica's coverage favors Western topics, but less so than competitors?

Kister states it more positively; he notes explicitly that it's not as biased as its competitors. I'll give a quote later today so that you can understand the context. No change?

“	It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the 15th edition of the Britannica accords non-Western cultural, social, and scientific developments more notice than any general English-language encyclopedia currently on the market	”
—Kenneth Kister, Kister's Best Encyclopedias (1994)

• Similar question with the '10% are female' statistic: I assume this is in the cited source (was it this article that at one point counted the number of female-sounding names, or am I thinking of something else?), but do they describe how they arrived at this figure? A much more useful comparison would be the percentage of female contributors in the 15th edition; obviously the percentage will sound low if you calculate it over the entire 300+ years of its existence.

The historical figures that are published are those of the 10th-11th editions, in which women represented 2% of the credited authors. According to the cited Gillian Thomas book, there were many parts written uncredited by the EB's largely female "secretarial" staff. No women were credited prior to the 10th edition. A calculation based on the published list of contributors, under the most generous assumptions (all androgynous names are female), yields a present-day figure of 9%. I realize that that can't be cited as WP:NOR, but it also seemed unfair to cite the 2% figure.

I'm loath to remove the sentence, but maybe it's better without it. Removed sentence

• In the staff section, there should again be a note or reference of some sort for the statement that the editorial staff writes the Micropedia articles, particularly if you're giving such a very specific example. Mentioning again that these are anonymous is pertinent, but whether or not they provide references is irrelevant here.

The actual article says "Eds." at the bottom, which stands for the editorial staff. I can reference it. Did this

• The large number of statistics on the ages and deaths of the editorial advisors does not seem relevant - there never seems to be a point made about them. I assume the idea is that they may be out of date and/or out of tune with their younger consumers, but that's never stated and probably shouldn't be unless there's a source for it.

The idea is that many readers may be people researching a paper or newspaper article. When writing about Wikipedia, such researchers often note the relative youth of its typical contributors, and I thought they might appreciate some data on the age of their EB counterparts.

The death dates are a measure of the time since some contributions have been updated in the EB.

OK, though I'm a bit resistant to including information in a particular article simply because people often mention the corresponding Wikipedia-related factoid. It's not clear reading this article in isolation why we need this list of facts - eg, a percentage of dead 'editorial advisors' doesn't have any implication for whether the content they oversaw has been updated or not, does it? (Unless the percentage is 100%, I suppose.) Also, if the Propedia contributor list has just been accreting new names over time, then there will be dead people on the list, but it would have been updated by the newcomers. (I'm not sure if it works this way, but it seems likely.) Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

No change?

• Starting the corporate structure section with their registered trademarks seems odd; ideally move it down.

OK, did that.

• 'Magisterial' is an odd adjective for an encyclopedia.

I was reaching for an adjective that sounded grand and authoritative, something that says, "this purports to be the definitive reference work", non plus ultra. Removed "magisterial" clause

• I admit a bias here; corporate drone-speak makes me gag. But I don't see the relevance of this 'Porter 5 forces' stuff - what one particular business model suggests about Britannica seems quite tangential - and the application seems to be... well, maybe too trivial to be OR, but certainly 'novel synthesis' on some level.

Need to brood on this for a little while; maybe you're right. The conclusion seems pretty obvious, though, even without appealing the 5-forces analysis, so I wouldn't call it a novel synthesis. The only reason for citing the 5-forces analysis is to place the argument in the framework of accepted economic theory. (Ooops, is that drone-speak? Sorry, I'm too good of a parrot. ;)

(later) Removed references to Porter 5-forces analysis. did this

• 'Dr. Kister' doesn't need an honorific.

Good catch, thanks! Did this

• Whether Wikipedia is bigger than an ancient Chinese encyclopedia is also irrelevant in an article about neither. (I assume that's 'Yong-le', but I always want to read it 'Yon-gle'.)

OK, I can delete this. Did this

• 'oriented towards omissions' - needs rewording - doesn't really make sense to be 'oriented' toward an omission.

I agree. Did this

• Unless we get a link to information about Crotona/e, we have no way of evaluating that example. I think it's better to just say 'minor spelling variations' or somesuch.

OK. Did this

• I'm not sold on comparing web traffic to Wikipedia vs Britannica: it's pretty obvious that most for-pay sites will get lower traffic on average than free ones, and some of the discrepancy is surely explained by the fact that people do think of Wikipedia when they want to know what movie this actor was in or what season of Futurama has the episode where Leela discovers that she's a mutant. (Hmm, guess what's on TV right now?) It's sort of like saying 'Google Scholar gets more web traffic than PubMed' - well, yes, but one is much more specialized. (Also, high probability that Wikipedia users are more likely to have the Alexa tool installed than Britannica users, who likely are concentrated in schools.) In short, there's enough caveats to the comparison that I'm not sure that stating it in an unqualified way is helpful.

I agree with your conclusion although, speaking for myself, I think that Futurama is just as valid a subject for curiosity as Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector. I believe that the function of an encyclopedia is to inform on any subject of interest to its readers, not to pass judgment on the worthiness of those subjects. I love Homer and can recite hundreds of lines of his poetry, but to me, that shouldn't be more exalted than a fanboy reciting every line in Star Wars; both of us are equally in love. :) I remember Jorge Luis Borges saying that tango lyrics would someday be more highly esteemed and remembered in his native Argentina than all the then-current high-brow poetry; and he was right.

If we agree on that, then I think the 450-fold difference in web traffic does reflect a greater perceived value of Wikipedia over the Britannica, both for its content and for its accessibility. People are voting with their feet — or mice?

No change?

No, I'm not comfortable with that conclusion; it would only work if the two sites' content coverage were roughly the same, or there were some way of quantifying Wikipedia's traffic for content that overlaps with Britannica's coverage. People come to Wikipedia for a much broader scope of information - last time I looked, the 100 most-viewed articles were over-enriched in anime characters and body parts - so it's formally possible given this data that more people use Britannica for traditional encyclopedic topics, but Wikipedia gets more traffic from other coverage. I don't believe that's true at all, but it can't be excluded. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is covered in the sources, but what's the rationale behind the edition numbering system? I saw the volumes column in the table jumping around from 28 to 3 and back, and wondered what happened, only to realize that the separately numbered '12th edition' is just a supplement to the 11th... and yet the addition of an index to the 15th didn't trigger a new number, and they've been on the same edition since the 70s. Given the continuous revision policy, what demarcates the recent editions? Marketing/corporate whim? Opabinia regalis 03:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

There was no rationale except the marketing idea of the new American owners. The basic idea is that encyclopedias gradually get outdated and need new material; however, the cost of a whole new edition is exorbitant. The earlier additions to the 3rd and 5th editions were called "supplements". However, Messrs. Hooper et al. recognized the sales potential of adding a few volumes to the 9th and calling it the 10th; more than a few people in the early 20th century were outraged to discover that they had bought a 10th edition that was mostly composed of the 9th. They applied the same strategy to the 11th, adding three volumes to get the 12th and a different set of 3 to get the 13th.

You're always a gem, and I'd appreciate any more comments or sugggestions that you have. Thanks! Willow 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• The current version of the criticism section has a lot of unnecessary adjectives that add up to a slanted feel. James Joyce wasn't just omitted, but slighted, the editors weren't just wrong or out of date, but promoted charlatanry, its claims aren't just factually false, but intemperate, etc. The quote is a good one for illustrating the problem (what, people who don't know their own limits producing sub-par articles? A truly foreign thing for Wikipedia!), but it's just kind of stuck into the text with no explanatory transition (eg, it was evidently written after the American buyout, but we don't know when this was written without clicking the footnote). It also seems deeply peculiar to be citing Britannica articles in support of statements that contradict Britannica's own promotional claims. Lastly, the racism and sexism paragraph is troublesome, as it seems to be judging a 1911 work by modern standards, and cites examples that might have been just ordinary shoddy work. (eg, paraphrasing the KKK's description of itself is not necessarily the endorsement of these views, as the article's text implies.)

• There is also one odd citation in the reputation section, reading '(source: interview in The New Yorker, March 3, 1938)' but without the footnote format the rest of the text uses, and without identifying the article. Opabinia regalis 02:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Stbalbach

• Oppose. I think the article is very good but to reach featured I think some issues of POV balance need to be discussed. -- Stbalbach 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is little critical discussion of EB. For example in Wikipedia, we have an entire article on Reliability of Wikipedia, and an entire article on Criticism of Wikipedia. Of course Wikipedia attracts that type of attention, but the criticisms of EB are currently few and spread out in the article with qualifiers. The "Reputation" section is very rosy saying "the Britannica has enjoyed a reputation for general excellence." Maybe a "popular" reputation, but the 1911 edition had many criticism's published at the time, including a 200+ page book by Willard Huntington Wright called Misinforming a Nation (1917) - the 15th edition also had many criticisms. Given the more recent attention of WP vs EB, it has also attracted criticism. The Bias section could be expanded, some of the problems discussed in Wright's book are still around today. It also seems to downplay things by saying "albeit less so than several older encyclopedias" and following up the bias section with an "Awards" section.

More criticism should perhaps be included. I'll try to do that; the Ken Kister and Gillian Thomas references have some nice discussions, not to mention the fine book by Einbinder. However, the Misinforming a Nation book was discredited (even in its own time) as a mere polemic, not a fair critique. I'm willing to discuss it, but we should bear its negative example in mind in our writing here. OK, did that; what do you think of the new section?

I believe wholeheartedly in a fair and scrupulously complete presentation; but in cases of doubt, I believe we should treat the EB with gracious generosity and fellow feeling. We both share a common good purpose, to enlighten those who wish enlightenment and to transmit the hard-won culture and knowledge of previous eras to the next. It's easy to scorn them for their failings, but we have our share of those as well; and I think we do better to help them, to improve them gadfly-like, rather than to try to drag them into the mud. Indeed, I foresee that our article on them will improve their reputation and business, rather than detract from them; I couldn't be more delighted in the success of a noble pursuit. History teaches that making an encyclopedia is a labor of love, not of lucre; there are much easier ways of making a buck.

I think you did a good job on the criticisms section. there are much easier ways of making a buck.. lol, well, for most of us no bucks involved, it is a labor of love of knowledge, and with Wikipedia, democratic knowledge (if such a thing exists). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• EB is a general purpose encyclopedia, compared to other more specialized encyclopedia's, it is not nearly as good. For example, just about any topic on the Middle Ages is going to be more reliable in Dictionary of the Middle Ages - the same could be said for Medical, regional, and other types of encyclopedias. There are thousands of dictionaries/encyclopedias today. The article doesn't really place EB into context, it speaks about Encyclopedia's as a whole, when it's really a sub-genre of Encyclopedia, the general purpose encyclopedia.

Agreed, I'll try to add that. Did this

Looks good. Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• The WP:LEAD section discusses a lot about the latest edition and its lower price point, but misses large parts of the rest of the article. The Lead section is a balanced summary of the article content, it should not say anything "new" that is not already said in more detail in the article body. It should be a mini stand-alone version of the article in summary format. See WP:LEAD for more.

You're right, I'll try to cover the rest without causing the lead to balloon uncontrollably.

OK, I tried to shorten the lead, but add in other parts covered in the main article. How does that look? Thanks for your other really nice comments, BTW! :) Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica Online should be made at least a stub, it's pretty bad right now. The Online Britannica is more than just a digital version of the paper edition, it contains a lot of unique material.

Would you be willing to tackle that? You're right, it's shamefully bad right now, almost an advertisement. However, that's another article and somewhat ancillary to this one's FAC. Thanks, Willow 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I will keep it in mind as I find sources about it. One important thing to note in that article, for Wikipedia readers, is that EB articles are fully and freely available when linked to from outside sources (such as WP), no subscription needed. I've often seen editors delete external links to EBO because they think it is a pay-site (which it is, but not when linked to from Wikipedia). -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Structure of sections. Currently there are 4 main sections: History, Status 2007, Contributors/Staff, Competition. Would it make sense to have a 5th section called "Reception" into which these sub-sections be moved: Reputation, Criticisms, Awards, with a lead paragraph giving summary highlights from those three sections. I realize this puts the "criticisms" and "awards" right next to each other, but it makes logical sense. If not awards could be kept in the Status 2007 section. -- Stbalbach 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a great idea, and very apt. Do you like the current wording of the section title? There's no lead-in blurb, but maybe it's not needed? Willow 22:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metabolism

A broad overview of the chemical basis of life, dealing with metabolic processes in microbes, plants and animals. Self-nomination. The article is 78 kb in total size with 43 kb of readable text. It has recently been peer-reviewed. TimVickers 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Dr pda returns less (34KB) prose size; oh, my, those External links! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also just added a "Further reading" section. TimVickers 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support After reading this article for peer-review (along with Zephyris and BirgitteSB), I'm more than convinced it meets FA criteria. It is comprehensive and not long-winded, uses summary style throughout as needed, is very lay-accessible in my humble opinion and is nicely illustrated, something I find important for such a topic (ooh, pretty pictures! ;) Fvasconcellos 14:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support very well-written and well-organized, as usual ;) A few comments:
  • Examples of proteins: fibrous and globular, but not membrane proteins? I know they're just examples, but it's still an odd omission.

Added transporters.

• • I like the glucose animation, but can it be slowed down a bit? I'd be surprised if anyone watching could follow what was going where without watching many iterations.

I can't do that myself, but there is Image:Glucose Fisher to Haworth.gif, would this be an improvement?

I think the one in the article is 'nicer' - the animation is smoother, and there's no weird antialiasing issues when it rotates - but hard to 'get' without watching for a long time unless you already know what's happening. It's up to you - I thought there was a way to set the frame rate for an animated GIF, but I also know nothing about animations. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've put this in as a request to the Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. TimVickers 15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

...and then withdrawn it, since I worked out how to do it myself. Slower animation substituted. TimVickers 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • These section headings seem a little strange: why 'coenzymes' by themselves, and then group cofactors with minerals? The latter is almost all about inorganic ions anyway. Also in this section, the first sentence ending with 'minute concentrations' could mention that these are nevertheless crucial; currently the importance of trace elements doesn't come up till the last paragraph.

Reworded. Coenzymes are separated from cofactors as these two classes of molecules play very different roles in metabolism. I wanted to emphasise this difference as it is not usually discussed well in textbooks.

• • 'The amino acids or sugars released by these extracellular enzymes are then pumped into cells by specific active transporters' - mention that the transporters are proteins.

Reworded.

• • In the proteins section, there's no definition or wikilink to alpha-keto acid, and I wouldn't expect that to be something most readers are familiar with. Actually, in the nucleotides section, the same for 'pyrimidine' and 'purine' - just a link to pyrimidine etc. would be good, as I think the distinction is described earlier.

There's a link in "The amino group is fed into the urea cycle, leaving a deaminated carbon skeleton in the form of a keto acid." was this the section you were meaning? Purine and pyrimidine links added.

• • Three notes numbered in the hundreds is long and crowded in the text - maybe condense refs 119-121 to one note, since they aren't reused.

Done

• • Are any of the images unusually large in file size? This page loads rather slowly for me, though other pages are loading normally.

I don't think so, this is 81kb in size now. Perhaps we should remove the animation?

No, I like the animation - I'm the only one with the problem so far. Opabinia regalis 06:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • All of the external links seem to be well-chosen; this section is long, but useful. Opabinia regalis 01:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! TimVickers 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- quite well written--ppm 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support (non-expert). This isn't an overview of or introduction to metabolism that is fully accessible to the general reader. However, such a big topic would probably require an article the size of a book to achieve that. Reading through (which took me over an hour) I did learn and I was amazed at the complexity of life. I dare say that if I concentrated on a section and followed more of the (over 600) wikilinks I could learn a fair amount. The technical words and phrases are all wikilinked – it is great that there are so many articles to support it. Colin°^Talk 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is very difficult subject to cover in a general encyclopedia article. Well done!--BirgitteSB 13:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Minor suggestion:

• Nucleotides act as coenzymes in several important group transfer reactions. (a reference would be great)

Anyway I'm going to support it as a perfectly referenced, well illustrated article. Really one of the best works of Wikipedia. Well done, Tim! NCurse _work 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Added specific ref for this and a general textbook ref for several other things in this introductory section. TimVickers 20:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Thank you! NCurse _work 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. "Multicellular elephants" sounds a bit strange. It forces one to contemplate the existance of unicellular elephants, if only breifly. Not sure how one would rephrase that sentence though. Kaldari 01:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Slight rewording to "...the unicellular bacteria Escherichia coli and huge multicellular organisms like elephants." TimVickers 03:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support. A great science article that includes substantial scientific detail (or summarizes and links to more detailed pages for those who care) but also in a style and with enough introductory material that makes it accessible to non-scientists as well. Couple of concerns:
  • Image placement quirk: images are in the section before the section describing them, relying on layout/wrapping to place their associated text next to them. At best, that "works, sort-of, on most standard browsers". Better to place the image in the relevant section. I fixed one case, but it looks like a general problem throughout the article.

I've moved the right-aligned images down, but this is the best option for the left-aligned images in subsections. If you put a sub-heading over a left-aligned image then it is separated from the text it refers to and looks like it is a title for the image.

• • Image+table layout problem: a left-side thumb followed by a table forces the table to be to the right of the image, even on narrow monitors. That means side-scrolling...yuck :( Fixed.

Thanks.

• • Fisher projection problem: In the ring/chain image, the convention for a Fisher projection is to place the backbone vertically—otherwise the implied stereochemistry is confusing (and may even be enantiomer for this specific case).

Replaced with different animation.

• • Anabolism intro section confusion: The text describes two types (autotroph vs heterotroph), the flowchart finds six types, and the table has four. Are photoautotroph and chemoautotroph subtypes of autotroph, or is "autotroph" a completely separate thing, or is autotroph both a superclass and a catch-all/"other" subclass of itself? Would this thing be clearer as a tree with tri-state branching ("light", "inorganic oxidation", "other") from each of autotroph and heterotroph roots? Or as a table with rows for light/inorg/other and columns for auto/hetero? Or is this whole flow-chart un-necessary, since a single additional sentence in the preceeding paragraph could explain it all, like: "Organisms can be further classified by ultimate source of their energy: photoautotrophs and photoheterotrophs obtain energy from light, whereas chemoautotrophs and chemoheterotrophs obtain energy from inorganic oxidation processes."

I never liked that flowchart much - ZAP! It is gone. Your text added. Thank you.

• • Pedantic biblio formatting stuff: Some References and Further reading cites use "and" and some use "&" in author lists, and some use periods after first initials while others do not. There's also some inconsistency in what text is the hyperlink, especially for web publications (Buchner's Nobel lecture, for example), presumably as a result of using "raw" formatting instead of the {{cite}} templates. I wouldn't hold up this FAC for failure to use the templates, but at least need to be consistent if doing it manually sometimes. For articles with a PMID, the PMID automatically links, so an additional explicit url that takes one to the same place seems redundant. Only really makes sense if the article is subscription-only via PMID but is available free from some alternate/reprint site.

I've directly linked only the articles with free full-text access, to make it easier for the majority of the readers who don't have web subscriptions to see at a glance what they can access. Fixed formatting for the journal I found. Unfortunately the book cite template produces a slightly different output than the journal cite! TimVickers 16:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Lanosterol synthesis image: The methyls at C13 and C14 look skewed...probably "correct" in a ChemDraw/geometric sense, but would look better being completely vertical instead of slanted due to the 5-membered ring. Also the color-coding is weird...indicates bonds not atoms, so a place where a blue line meets a red one is an atom of indeterminate origin. If we believe the lanosterol page (which is questionable, since the lead structure is wrong?!) biosynthetic and if I follow the colors correctly here, the C14 methyl is the wrong color. DMacks 06:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I vectorized the image, so I'll take responsibility for the "skewed" methyl groups—those are due to ChemSketch's auto bond angles, I'll fix them if you like. The color coding wasn't mine, so I'll steer clear of that one :) Also, I can't believe the lead structure in lanosterol is wrong; that's not one of mine, but I'll fix it anyway. Fvasconcellos 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • • Lanosterol fixed. Walking away now... :) Fvasconcellos 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking something like Image:lanosterol-synth.png. Coloring fixed to match monomer origins based on the mechanisms on the squalene and lanosterol pages. DMacks 16:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think the original is one possible pathway, as DMAPP and IPP can condense to form geranyl-PP, two molecules of geranyl-PP condense to form farnesyl-PP and then two molecules of farnesyl-PP condense to form squalene. However, several pathways are possible, see link. TimVickers 17:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pinkham Notch

previous FAC

• Self-nomination This article is well written, completely cited, and provides great coverage of an area of wikipedia that is usually not very well covered. It narrowly missed FA status last time (see archived above), but has been edited, improved, and peer reviewed, and I believe is ready to be promoted. Thanks. -- Sturgeonman 16:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic theory

former fac1, former fac2, former fac3

• Nitpicking: Those JPG images should ideally by SVG. You could probably catch hold of someone who's made svg diagrams for format conversion.
• I think this image: Image:Electron orbitals.svg would be a welcome addition to the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note The article was nominated by Kurzon (talk • contribs) with no commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, bad form.Kurzon 07:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Object. This article has some shortcomings content-wise and source-wise.--ragesoss 17:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• This is an article on the history of atomic theories, but it draws almost exclusively on primary sources and websites of dubious authority with respect to the topic (ISCID, Encarta, etc.). There are many good histories of physics and chemistry that could be used for this article; Quantum Generations by Kragh is a good general source for the late-nineteenth and 20th-century portions of the story, and there are a number of histories of chemistry that would be relevant.
• There is no mention of the many intermediate theories between what is described in the "Birth" section and J.J. Thomson. The vortex-based ether theories and other 19th century ideas are an important part of the web of ideas from which modern atomic theory arose. There is, for example, no mention of either James Clerk Maxwell or Ludwig Boltzmann.
  • I found no mention of intermediate theories in my research. I deliberately omitted obsolete theories from the Modern Atomic Theory part, unless a said theory was a vital stepping stone to another. Otherwise, this article would become too large, and the dead ends would distract readers from the core chain of discoveries that led to our current understanding of the atom. For instance, Gilbert N Lewis once proposed that atoms were shaped like cubes, in an attempt to explain chemical bonding. This was discarded when Schroedinger came along with his waveform model which was not built upon the Lewis model.Kurzon 07:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned above, there are history of physics sources that deal with these issues. It is not legitimate in a historical article to omit "obsolete theories", especially when the the line between an obsolete theory and a precursor that has some retained elements is so fuzzy. It is more a gradual evolution of theories than a simple case of some wrong dead ends being omitted. I strongly suggest that you consult Quantum Generations as well as Intellectual Mastery of Nature: Theoretical Physics from Ohm to Einstein, volume 2 by Jungnickel and McCormmach. There's also a good atomic theory bibliography here: [3] --ragesoss 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is no adequate transition between the "philosophical atomism" section and what presumably is the contrasting birth of scientific atomism. Much more relevant to the topic than Indian, Greek, or Islamic atomism was the assortment of Renaissance and early-modern atomic theories.

Weak object The tone does not always seem suitable. The comment that the Greeks would think graphite and diamonds composed of carbon, for instance, sounds very informal. The significiance of Einstein's work is also not made clear: it was the first evidence that atoms were actual physical objects of determinate size, rather than infinitely small theoretical models. Goldfritha 21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "antiquated beliefs .. arbitrarily small quantity." contradicts the next sentence "Atomic theory began thousands of years"
  • Indian philosophy section needs more specific references.--ppm 22:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - I am surprised to see so many comments in the previous FACs saying 'not enough refs' and few dealing with the problems the article has. It is far short of FA standards. My problems with its current version are:

• Atomism - needs a paragraph or two discussing atomism as a concept rather than starting straight off with the Indian philosophy. I would like to see this section much more heavily cited. The section on the Greeks cannot continue to rely on Encarta, which is not a reliable source. Furthermore there were more Greek atomists than Democritus and Leucippus
• The article doesn't cover anything from the 11th to the 19th century. How did the early atomic philosophy affect the later atomic hypothesis in science? Did medieval alchemists and renaissance scientists put the atomic hypothesis entirely from their minds? Were any theories developed in the missing period influenced by the idea of atoms (e.g. Newton's corpuscular theory of light?)
• You should remove the 'Modern Atomic Theory' section and make each subsection a section in its own right.
• Birth: Why are Brown's and Einstein's contribution to Brownian motion relevant, given that Dalton and Avogadro's work?
• How quickly was the atomic hypothesis adopted; did it immediately gain acceptance or did it face opposition for ages?
• I would put the discovery of nucleus and electrons into one section.
• Isotopes: Why are they relevant to atomic theory? And the account of their discovery is not the same as that given in isotope.
• I would make 'Quantum models of the atom' a section of its own. I think you need to give the reader an idea of the state of atomic theory today, even if it is largely unchanged since the 1920s. You also need to talk about applications of atomic theory and other theories derived from it (nuclear fission, quantum electrodynamics, etc).
• The number of original papers in the references is a strong point of the article. However I would prefer to see some non-technical references - e.g. authoritative textbooks or popular science - included as well.
  • This is an explicitly historical article, and there is plenty of history that has been written. The number of original papers is a flaw, in my view, bordering on original research. There have been probably thousands of papers on atomic theory, and it is not self-evident which are the most significant.--ragesoss 04:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Regards, The Land 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Movement

The Liberal Movement (usually referred to as the LM) was a minor Australian political party that flourished in the 1970s. Stemming from discontent within the ranks of the Liberal and Country League, it was first formed by former South Australian Premier Steele Hall as an internal group in 1972 in response to a lack of reform within its parent. A year later, when tensions heightened between the LCL's conservative wing and the LM, it was established on its own in as a progressive liberal party. When still part of the league, it had eleven representatives; on its own, it initially had three.

This is a delightful piece of South Australian political history that I've been working on for a while now. It's thorough, well referenced, and has been subject to some helpful advice from fellow Wikipedians.

Comments and advice will be responded to promptly. Thank you! michael ^talk 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments You might want to put your references after your notes section, and wikilink the dates that you retrieved the web sources from. Also, I would prefer it if your lead paragraphs had a citation or two. Good stuff though! SGGH 08:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Self-nom — hello again everybody. I'm also a little nervous nomming this article, because something like this has not quite been done on FAC; it's uncharted waters for everyone. As always, I'd like to provide a brief overview. Character coverage of Final Fantasy VIII was initially spread out among eight character articles and a list of minor characters, all with little or no citations. Approximately two weeks ago, I started a sandbox entry with the goal of merging all the character pages with the minor character list. After this was accomplished, I placed it in namespace. I looked at some old versions of the Final Fantasy VIII page, and noticed an extremely large, sourced development section. I took this and added it into a new section, and then I went to these sources and found information for even some of the minor characters. This allowed the article to have an out of universe perspective. But even better, Teggles added a merchandise section and found image sources. A reception and criticism section was soon created, and more information was trimmed; following this, Axem — one of the people instrumental in the latest surge of project activity — performed a very nice and much needed round of consolidation and copy-editing while expanding on several concepts. Several other editors contributed to the effort as well.

Another Final Fantasy FAC may be coming soon — Final Fantasy XII. I understand that projects should not spread themselves too thin, but we should be able to withstand two fronts (we have done it in the past with Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy VIII).

The article itself features a two paragraph lead; it helps establish the notability of the game as a whole, how the characters were received, and a brief overview of the cast. This is followed by a development section, which outlines the inspirations for creating these characters from the perspective of the game designers. It uses sources that are reliable in relation to this subject at hand, and many are used in current FAs. This section is followed by an outline of the major characters; Axem helped organize the information here so that we had three paragraphs for most major characters, and not four in some cases. Two other character sections follow, and the aforementioned merchandise and reception and criticism sections follow suit. An external link is provided to the Final Fantasy Wikia's FF8 character category, where extreme details of this game's characters belong. Anyway, I'm being long-winded like Laguna Loire, so let the discussion begin! — Deckiller 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on tense — past tense is used to depict events occuring before the game, during flashbacks. Present tense is to depict events occuring during the non-flashback parts, or when introducing a character. This is for clarity. — Deckiller 16:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• After reading through the whole thing, I'm very impressed. I would've liked to see a "groups" section (with SeeD, Galbadian Soldiers, etc.) and a "cosplay" section, but I realize these are very difficult to source. One problem I *think* exists is that you bring up people/events/things without explanation. In Squall's paragraph you bring up Seifer and Rinoa for the first time, and fail to explain who they are - Seifer could be called a "fellow student", but I'm not sure what to do with Rinoa. Can you also explain what a Limit Break is? This seems to occur later on as well, but I don't think the problem is too big. Another small problem is the merchandise image - it could be free use. Do you think you could talk to the owner of the site about it? Anyway, although I've just presented you with a bunch of suggestion, I'm still going to support - this article is well referenced, well written, has a good use of images, and is quite comprehensive. Well done. --Teggles 23:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the comment. The groups section will probably fall under "World of Final Fantasy VIII" when it is started (usually factions are kept separate from the characters). That'll allow locations and factions to be wikilinked. I was thinking about a cosplay section too, but it's so hard to find enough material. As for the image, I can just replace it if it continues to be an issue brought up. I believe Limit Break is linked the first time it appears, as are the other names (the protagonists and main characters are explained in the lead, with wikilinks provided). — Deckiller 23:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow, I'm not sure how I didn't spot that. I previously did a search for Seifer and Rinoa and the first results were in Squall's paragraph. I was wrong about the Limit Break too. My apologies. :) --Teggles 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, you were spot on about the limit breaks; I added that in after your post. Speaking of a World of Final Fantasy VIII article, I'll start it up in my sandbox. If we can follow something similar to a combo Spira (Final Fantasy X) and Locations in Spira article, with more out of universe information, we might have a chance at another GA. — Deckiller 23:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support for this impressive article. I can't find any reason why it shouldn't be an FA. Not only is it an interesting read, it has been well copyedited by Deckiller and Axem. Well done to all those who edited and created this article. Darthgriz⁹⁸ 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support — Likewise I see no reason it should not be an FA. I would, however, like to see how the past and present tenses are used in the article explained within the prose. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 01:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, can I open a little discussion about the use of past tense? While copy-editting, I also noticed how the shift seemed a odd from a reader's perspective. Would it be possible to shift the past tense into present if it is explicitly denoted (somehow) that it occurs in the "past" of the game? Axem Titanium 04:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, that might work. "During the sequences" and whatnot might work. — Deckiller 04:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I changed Quistis' beginning section back to past since it would sound awkward otherwise. The intention is still quite clear though. Axem Titanium 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• I suppose anything I say would have to be a co-nom and support because of all the time I've invested in the improvement of this article. Large kudos to Deckiller for initiating this; all I did was brush up the edges and put a nice pretty bow in the top. BTW, this is quite possibly the best character page on all of Wikipedia (that is until we get to all the other FF character pages, mwahaha). Axem Titanium 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Looks good. --- RockMFR 04:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I wish that every character article looked like this. Clear, concise, OR-free, and so well sourced that the reference section is longer than half the articles on WP. I wish I could write articles like this. --PresN 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well you can! Are you tired of scrounging the bottom of the editing barrel? Well, just buy my 12 hour training video for 3 easy payments of $99.99 & you'll be able to write FA's like the pro's! But wait there's more! If you order now, you'll also recieve my special somputer software valued at $39.95 absolutely free! That's right, free!!! Just call 0800 65-555-789 to recieve the oppurtunity of a life time & be the Wikipedia editor you were born to be! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Hands down support - Great article, no quarrels here whatsoever. I wish more game articles were like this... It's just so great! -- Spawn Man 06:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, the only FF's I played were the SNES ones, but the article is great, illustrated, referenced and well-written... however, I must Comment: why in the FAC and not the WP:FLC? igordebraga ≠ 14:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, Deckiller and I felt that this article transcends being a simple list of the characters because it also includes information about their design and development, their reception, merchandise and a million other things that make it less like a list and more like a full-fledged article. Axem Titanium 14:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Indeed; this is an article, not a list; lists have much less prose content, and are usually for organization. Thanks for the support! — Deckiller 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This article meets the criteria for featured article. Flubeca 18:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks for the support everybody! — Deckiller 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Question Are you aware that Image:Ff8-squall.jpg is marked as not having a source? Jay32183 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• The no source tag has no merit. Apparently the tag was added because the location of the original publication of the image was not provided. --- RockMFR 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that he source tag has no merit. The website clearly states that they are character designs are from Nomura. We state that in the image file. If we had to be that strict with images - providing a source of the source of the source - we might as well completely de-feature all our content. I'll go ahead and change the resolution, if people are really that nitpicky about images. — Deckiller 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In case AMIB still has issues, I sent a message to the webmaster.— Deckiller 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on images — from image policy: "Their origin must be properly referenced. In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator (e.g. in the case of reproduction of ancient artwork or artifacts), it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content (author, manuscript, museum id) must be given (see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources)." The author is provided both on the image link here and the website, so there should not be a problem. Again, if there are still issues, I contacted the webmaster. — Deckiller 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As I suspected, the webmaster e-mailed me back and said that the original uploader stated they were from the V-Jump Art Book. He's in the process of obtaining a copy to verify for himself, but I think it's clear that this is not an issue. — Deckiller 02:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. An article that proves character pages need not be lists or guides to be helpful. Much better than List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which itself is featured. Nice job! Nall 06:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great work. I'm not sure how you managed to get 100+ references for this, but that's super. I can tell a lot of work has been put into this. I think this deserves featured article status. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Full Support Like I mentioned in the GA-nom for this article, going for FA-class is, to me, merely a formality. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 03:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquinas College, Perth

previous FAC

This article has been listed as a GA for a decent time, if a former FAC (when it was assesed at B-Class), it has since undergone an amazing transformation. Please vote below Twenty Years 16:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. The prose needs work. Here are a few examples from the lead of why the whole text needs copy-editing by someone who's unfamiliar with it:
  • "The Christian Brothers opened their first school in Western Australia on 31 January 1894 on the corner of St Georges Terrace and Victoria Avenue in Perth, naming it Christian Brothers College Perth, although it was commonly referred to as CBC Terrace[c] in reference to the school being located on St George's Terrace." Long snake needs chopping up; the last clause is ungrammatical.
  • "... boarding students.[8] The first boarding students ..." Audit for such close repetitions.
  • "The accommodation at the site was very limited and as early as 1917, headmaster Br. Paul Nunan saw the necessity of acquiring a property away from the city center to reside the whole school." Try to avoid "very". Is the marked expression "as early as" necessary here? "Saw the necessity of" is a little awkward. Australian spelling PLEASE. Tony 09:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Masses of refs to unverifiable sources such as the Aquinas College student diary. I suggest that this be rectified. It has only been GA for under three weeks, and the GA reviewer left reservations despite passing it on the article talk page - have those been addressed? DanielT5 13:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, thought I'd chip in since it was I who promoted it to GA only seventeen days ago. My concern from that promotion stands. Also, not imperative for GA's is a nice, consistent ref format, obviously it's not going to get through in its current state. -- PhoenixTwo 02:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vincent van Gogh

Came across this a few days ago. Made a few minor edits and I just can't belive it hasn't been nominated yet. Buc 08:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments:
• "There he not only studied anatomy, but the standard rules of modelling and perspective, all of which, he said, "you have to know just to be able to draw the least thing." Vincent wished to become an artist while in God's service as he stated, "to try to understand the real significance of what the great artists, the serious masters, tell us in their masterpieces, that leads to God; one man wrote or told it in a book; another in a picture." This quote is uncited.
• "The theory behind this also stresses the value of complementary colours in proximity—for example, blue and orange—as such pairings enhance the brilliance of each colour by a physical effect on the receptors in the eye." I would think a citation here is also needed.

• This is basic theory and widely known and accepted. Tyrenius 01:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• "In June he visited Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. He gave drawing lessons to a Zouave second lieutenant, Paul-Eugène Milliet, who also became a companion. MacKnight introduced him to Eugène Boch, a Belgian painter, who stayed at times in Fontvieille (they exchanged visits in July). Gauguin agreed to join him in Arles. In August he painted sunflowers; Boch visited again." Choppy prose or is it just my impression?
• "Van Gogh cut off the ear lobe on one of his ears during some sort of seizure on December 23, 1888[citation needed]." A citation has been requested here. These tags must be fixed before the article gets FA.
• "Wheat Field with Crows—an example of the unusual double square canvas-size he used in the last weeks of his life—with its turbulent intensity is often, but mistakenly, thought to be Van Gogh's last work (Jan Hulsker lists seven paintings after it)." Why don't you make a proper citation here with page number?
• "Theo hastened to be at his side and reported his last words as "La tristesse durera toujours" (French for "(the) sadness will last forever"). Another important quote needing citing. And why in italics?
• "Diagnoses which have been put forward include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, syphilis, poisoning from swallowed paints, temporal lobe epilepsy and acute intermittent porphyria." What sources report these diagnoses?
• "It has also been suggested that Van Gogh suffered from the brain disorder, Hypergraphia. The disorder causes a near constant overwhelming urge to write and is associated with epilepsy or mania." This is one of the few one-sentence paragraphs you have in the article. Per MoS it is recommended that such sentences are merged or expanded.
• "Van Gogh drew and painted water-colours, while he went to school, though very few of these works survive, and his authorship is challenged for many claimed to be from this period." What works are challenged, and who challenged them?
• "Nowadays they are appreciated as his first masterpieces." This may be generally acceptable, but I would like some sources.
• You mention all his notable works (or almost all) in the previous sections, so I don't really understand the necessity of "Notable works". For mentioning the museum in Amsterdam? But is this a reason strong enough for the creation of a stubby section?
• "Legacy" needs prose improvement. All these short, stubby paragraphs make it look listy and seamless.
• Fix note 4.
• Check all your inline citations; some of them are before the pun.mark or with a gap after the pun.mark.

I think the article is on a good track, but it needs further imrovements. Therefore, I will not object yet, and give the opportunity to the nominator to further upgrade it.--Yannismarou 09:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall I like the article, it is very good. However I'd like much more clarity about Vincent's posthumous success. How did this happen? What role did Vincent's family play after the two brothers died? How did publishing the letters affect the fate of the paintings? What role did Lust for Life and Hollywood play in Vincent's towering position as an artist? I recommend John Rewald Studies in Post-Impressionism, published by Abrams in 1986, the essay The posthumous fate of Vincent van Gogh in particular. An eye opener. Modernist 22:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Lead a tad too long. The para on Theo borders on POV, and should be much shorter
  • Early life: the first para is not well written. Starting with the birth of Van gogh, in the middle, it suddenly becomes a description of family lineage.

**"bringing his father's profession to some of the most wretched and hopeless people in Europe. " -- pov. rephrase.

• • Etten: "Stricker had earlier tutored Vincent in biblical criticism in his attempt to gain entrance to a university to study theology, " -- this info is being repeated here.
  • "The rate charged by the hotel was 5 francs a week, which Van Gogh regarded as excessive. He disputed the price, and took the case to the local arbitrator who awarded him a twelve franc reduction on his total bill[55] (the weekly rate being reduced from five francs to four)." -- not clear where this takes us. Why is this interesting?

In general, work needed on the "Compelling prose" requirement.--ppm 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Good, but there are outstanding citation requests as well as paragraphs/long sections missing citations. 'Legacy' and 'notable works' section don't have a single reference.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actions along the Matanikau

Respectfully submit this article on a World War II event for featured article consideration. Self-nomination with helpful assistance from other editors in the military history project. Cla68 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, thoroughly excellent article, as usual; all the issues raised during the peer review have been dealt with. Kirill Lokshin 04:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Per above.--Yannismarou 08:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Just a prose comment:"These two particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions." Is here the repetition of "two" necessary? Couldn't it just be: "These particular engagements, the first taking place between September 23 and September 27, 1942, and the second between October 6 and 9, 1942 were two of the largest and most significant of the Matanikau actions."--Yannismarou 14:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 21:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• question: Why the ridiculous disambiguation?? Circeus 00:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the dates in parentheses in the article title? That's to distinguish these actions from several others that took place in the same geographical area during the Guadalcanal campaign. Cla68 00:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)<

Well... I don't see a disambiguation page at Actions along the Matanikau, nor at a possible Battle of the Matanikau, so it appears to fit the bill for "no need for disambiguation". Circeus 02:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The other Matanikau actions are, or will be, articulated in the Guadalcanal campaign article. Cla68 03:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Then there is clearly no needfor the lengthy page name,as there will be no other similarly-named articles. A disambiguation link at the top of this one should be more than enough.Circeus 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 09:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: To keep the references section uniform, put <div class="references-small"> and </div> around the other subsections: books and web. Cheers, S.D. 00:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Aye, I think it is good. Thanks for giving it a better name. The old one gave me a headache.--Pupster21 16:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Van De Kamp

Ok, I've worked on this one a bit and I've tried to keep it within WP:MOS. The biography is as succinct as I could make it without losing meaning, and I've interjected out-of-world perspective where possible without disrupting the flow per guidelines. I did a google search on Andrew and trawled through all 37 pages for critical material - all but three articles have been worked into the article. I've gone through it on paper and copyedited it. I think it's ready. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support thoroughly referenced, well organised and constructed, and very good prose. A great article about a wonderfully psychotic character --User:Ahadland1234 17:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support needs 2 fixes:
  • References WAY overlinked. Only one instance is necessary for each episode, preferably the first.
  • Episode titles should be enclosed by double quotes.
• Otherwise looks pretty good. Circeus 00:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. I've put all episode titles in quote marks in the main text. Did you want them in the references as well? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I a referring to wikilinks in references, not the moment citation.Circeus 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I get you. All fixed. It look ok now? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is. Regarding the cite episode debacle. I'm not myself overly fond of that particular template (after all, I don't see anybody requesting people {{cite video game}}, for some reason...), but maybe you could convert only the first instance, and let the others as abbreviated refs? Would that make a good compromise? Oh, and full dates (in the refs) have to be properly wikilinked because user date preferences otherwise don't work. Circeus 14:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

On that issue, my qualm is not the actual usage of the template but rather the style, I my self am perfectly content with a consistent style, even if you do not actually use the template to output that style. Matthew 14:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The ref format is fine. If you want to make templates standard go here: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Many editors (myself included) despise the templates. But if there is some objective criterion regarding format that the current refs violate point it out. Aaron Bowen 09:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are actually fine witha consistent style, why have you opposed for it? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it isn't. Matthew 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Uhuh. Circeus, I've wikilinked all the dates in the refs for you. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think that the image in the infobox does not qualify as fair use. The rationale states that it is of a fictional character, but it appears to be an image of the actor not during performance of the role in question. The source website for the image lists it as the bio of the actor, not of the character. I would normally tag this image for this issue, but I'll leave it here for a short time to allow resolution first as FAC is pending. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The official website has the image as both the actor and the character. Certainly Shawn Pyfrom does not look like that outside desperate housewives. It seems to be meant as a publicity photo for both. Is this not ok? Someone else put that image there to update it from this one - would you rather that? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim to be a fair-use expert, so I'm happy to be over-riden by someone who knows better, but I actually do find the screenshot to be a preferable image, for the following reason. I think that the screenshot leaves no doubt as to the character being protrayed, whereas the current image, to me, is of questionable fair-use status. I should note that I don't remember the character ever looking like the image in the promo shot on the actual tv show, but I don't have a DVR or anything to check on. I really don't mean to fuss about this, I just would like to have the fair-use status of the image cleared up by one of the "image experts" to withdraw my opposition. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have switched the image while I clarify the other's one status. Anything else keeping you from supporting? ;-) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 05:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Change to Support. Dev920 has changed the image and listed it for comment regarding WP:FUC and I know that he will follow consensus there. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 06:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, episode refs should use {{cite episode}}, combined with usage of the name="x" parameter. I'll have a go at tasking this if I get the strength. Matthew 11:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't. Cite templates are irritating, fiddly and sometimes don't even work. The article consistently uses only one referencing format and I'd appreciate if you'd stick with it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please show me an example where they do not work. They work fine, if used properly, they enable consistency among articles, I'd certainly appreciate your help in converting it though, it'll be a bit of a task :\. Matthew 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I'm not going to bust a gut to change every single reference, which are consistently formatted throughout the article, to an arbitrary template I detest when I don't even need to. I would appreciate it if you would refrain. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - looking over it, it's all very impressive. Would anybody like me to standardize the episode citations? I don't think it's necessary to cite each one to the minute. Can't you just use the <ref name=Whatever/> tag loads?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said above, WP:CITE says page numbers should be included for books where posisble. It seems a logical extension that times should be given where possible for episodes. Look, the references are fine, OK? They're accurate, consistent, and took me hours to do. Why is everyone so keen to take them apart when it is pointless effort? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Another great article from Dev90.--Yannismarou 13:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - until converted to {{cite episode}}. Matthew 13:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE says "The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged by this or any other guideline." and makes it clear that this is purely an issue of personal preference. As the main editor to this article, and as I despise cite templates, I must decline to address your objection. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 13:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be doing it my self if I get the time, I advise you to read WP:OWN as well, by the way. Matthew 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Tenses need fixing as well, as per WP:TENSE. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I don't like templates either and when refs are formatted properly (as these are) there is no reason to insert them Incidentally don't throw around WP:OWN every time your minority opinion doesn't get dealt with Matthew. Aaron Bowen 09:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Great article Dev, I saw it when it was barely more than a stub, and it's amazing how much you've improved it. The references are okay too -Matthew, recheck WP:CITE. If the info that has to be there is provided, it's useless to go changing every single ref with a cite template just because of your personal preference. More than useless, it's horrible, tedious work. I believe you have no basis for your objection to the article. Cheers Raystorm 14:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Consistency with citations is paramount, every (nearly) other television related is using consistent citations styles. Matthew 14:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The referencing is utterly consistent throughout the article. All the previous supports have been made with the current citation style, and I would appreciate if you would cease changing it. WP:CITE says "Follow the system used for an article's existing citations. Do not change formats without checking for objections on the talk page. If there is no agreement, prefer the style used by the first major contributor." Please obey it. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support good article. The reason for weakness of support is that I am not sure this is the right model for fictional characters. Is this following some established template? Homer Simpson, which is a GA, takes a different track and with less quotations, more readable. --ppm 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support good article, meticulously referenced, exactly what one needs to know about this character. Polymathematics 03:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment
  • The main image is still tagged as unlicensed.... can that be removed, as a fair use rationale has been placed there with an appropriate tag?
  • Doesn't the introduction contain spoilers? Looking around at some other high profile TV characters (Jack Bauer, Jack Shephard, Alan Shore) there doesn't seem to be plot twists/details revealed in the intro? In this article it's revealed Andrew is bisexual, that he is sent to a delinquent camp and that he says he is gay just to get out of camp. It also reveals Bree throws him out and that he comes home under Orson's advice.... need I go on? There just seems to be too much detail without a spoiler warning (which wouldn't look very good at the top of the article I know). Couldn't this intro be cut down a bit?
  • As far as the citation is concerned, I might as well chip in whilst I'm rambling! Matthew, WP:CITE clearly states that citation templates are optional and unless a consensus is reached by the article's editors to change anything, no rogue editor should just insist upon using them. As far as I have read here everyone is happy (including myself!) with the current format and it does indeed seem to be consistent. This democratic approach would seem to override the warning of WP:OWN that all content shouldn't be submitted unless you're willing to have it "edited mercilessly," nor does support of the current format constitute a tag team. Mentality 10:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the image tag - discussion on the previous image at IfD continues. I'm not so sure about the spoilers though, I checked other character FAs like Palpitine and Amidala and they both have fairly major spoilers in the leads. The spoilers in the lead are over a year old anyway, so does that really matter? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think with those articles spoilers are necessary in defining the character properly in the intro - and no doubt spoilers will be required here. However, my ex-bf got me into desperate housewives a couple of months ago and I only just finished watching Season 1 last week!! If I had read this article a few weeks ago, I would have found out Rex Van De Kamp dies before I'd seen it, which is quite a major event and would have, quite frankly, pissed me off! I'm not saying remove information, just limit it in the intro. His sexuality for example, well that's required. But does the whole thing about him saying he's gay to get out of camp have to be mentioned? And the vanilla/choc ice cream quote?

That said looking through it again it doesn't reveal as much as I thought it did. I guess it's appropriate to refer to someone as the "late" <so and so> but it would have definitely spoiled it for me. All in all I guess it's not that big a deal, it's still a superb article so if you don't think it's worth it, I won't make a fuss! :P

I do think it would be more appropriate to link to the Bisexuality article with the word 'bisexual' rather than the quote about vanilla/chocolate ice cream though. And wikilink the word 'atheist' too. Mentality 22:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FairTax

This GA article has gone through an FA Drive and Pre-FA review on WikiProject Taxation, had two peer-reviews, and a prior FAC. I believe we've handled all points and issues presented. Morphh ^(talk) 14:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support It's an excellent article. CloudNine 18:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support looks good to me, although I would like to see more images on tax code compliance section, like a nice little graph. Other than that, great article, well done to everybody who contributed to it --User:Ahadland1234 21:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support I recently reviewed it from the POV of a non-American, and had my minor points speedily addressed. It's a comprehensive article. Winklethorpe 21:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support from a liberal economist. I find this article fascinating from an economic point of view, though I wish it could have just a touch more info on the impact on major accounting firms since they employ so many people in this country. What programs might the government put in place to get these people new jobs? For the last hour or so I've been trying to do calculations on the progressivity of this tax, and it looks good so far, as long as assumptions about the MPC and MPS hold true. If people actually are going to consume as much of their income as they do now, this looks very, very interesting. JHMM13 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments Looks pretty good, but I have a few concerns:
  • I think it's a bit too internal-links happy (I count well over half a dozen of them). A well organized article needs no internal links, and certainly none to previous sections.
  • Also, when linking to a section in another article, the link should make that clear, in the form foo#bar, not bar
  • There should be no such things as "main sections" (under "predicted effects")
  • I'm not too fond of two headers following each others directly. Some buffer text summarizing the section (much like the lead is a summary of the whole article) shouldn't be difficult to add.
  • Circeus 01:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a MoS link that discusses these points. I'd like to understand this further as I don't remember reading anything regarding them. Personally, I find the suggestions to be reader unfriendly but I'll go with it. Morphh ^(talk) 1:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

None of them are actually covered by the MoS (Do we need to justify every single comment on FACs via the MoS? That's a new one.), but in the case of, say "main sections" if people are still reading instead of having gone to read the Main article that covers the parent of these sections, they don't need to be reminded that such a main article exist. The section links is a usability basic concern: links in the form xxx makes people expect that they are going to an article titled "xxx", while the "#" makes it clearer that the link is to a section. Circeus 02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to address the section linking by using ": " instead of the "#" and linking the entire title (not just the section title). While a strung together link with a "#" in the middle is certainly clear to us, I'm not sure how clear it is to the normal reader. I wouldn't expect to see such formating in a paper encyclopedia when it makes reference to a subsection of another article, but I understand your point and have tried to address it. I've removed the "main sections" statement and I've added summaries to the double headers. So I feel I've addressed points 2-4. I disagree on point 1 and have not made this change. This would assume that people generally read an article from beginning to end and in order, which I know that I rarely do - I skip to particular sections of interest. In some cases, it would also assume that the reader understood all the concepts and was able to link similar effects/impacts, which usually takes time. Minor internal links that reference the details of points made earlier or later in an article can be very helpful. I don't see the drawback. If this is a big issue and there is more consensus, I'll make the change. For now, I hope that you will still support the article for FA. Thanks Morphh ^(talk) 19:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. No, no, no. Please tell us how "Fair Tax Blog" is a reliable source ???? And many of the sources seem clearly partisan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the blog source. It was mainly used as a secondary source to validate that proponents make the claim. It was a well written article and it only validated an proponent opinion, but I understand your point. I'm not sure I'd say that many were partisan, but many are from proponent or opponent sites. Americans For Fair Taxation (non-partisan org) puts out much of the proponent research. I've tried my best to weigh all the good neutral sources to the top and with the most references, but a lot of the detailed research is found on proponent or opponent sites. You don't find a WSJ article going into detail on such issues so to get any comprehensive article, you have to use such sources. I'll take a second look to see how I may be able to ref things better but this may never be achievable. I certainly see many FA articles that use citations from proponent and opponent sites - otherwise such articles would get little detail. Please tell me how I can fix it to your satisfaction. Morphh ^(talk) 1:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the blog is gone, and I'm going to be traveling, I'll trust you'll clean anything else up, and strike my Oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support An excellent example of how group consensus can produce an unbiased article about a subject which is easy to take a position on. Should be promoted on the front page. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there a rationale for the fair use image at the top of the article? The book whose cover is shown is only one reference about this issue. A cynic (who, me?) might think the purpose of the image in a feature article is to advertise it. The cover page of the bill submitted from thomas.loc.gov would be public domain and serve a similar role in the article. Also, I see some POV issues with the revenue chart, which shows everyone paying the same or less at a marginal tax rate of 23%, without showing the impact of a 28% or 36% rate as discussed in the text.204.186.60.102 20:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The rational for the Fair Use is discussed on the image page. The book was a NYT bestseller for several weeks and remained in the top 15 of Non-fiction for quite some time (both hardcover and paperback). The book is co-authored by the bill author, Congressmen John Linder and it is the most known and recognizable image of the FairTax plan and appropriate for the article. We don't have any source data in regard to the 28% rate suggested by Gale to formulate an impact (though it would still be lower then the current average marginal rate of 32.53%), nor do we have the data for the 36% rate by the JCT, which was not an analysis of the FairTax plan. We also have to take into account undue weight policy. This section is a summary style and more detail can be found on the sub-article. I replied to your earlier comment on the article talk. Morphh ^(talk) 21:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adore (album)

• A (not very successful) album by The Smashing Pumpkins. It is currently ranked as a Good Article, has had two Peer Reviews (June 2005 and February 2007), and most recently was the Alternative music WikiProject Collaboration of the Week. I now believe that it is fit to be a Featured Article, or so close that only a few minor edits will make it so. --Brandt Luke Zorn 03:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh, and I suppose this would additionally count as a self-nomination. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I think the outtakes section needs to be sourced. Also, it seems a little weird that of the two audio clips used in this article, one isn't even from the album in question. Wickethewok 20:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've removed the Smashing Pumpkins clip that isn't from this album - the rationale for putting it there in the first place was that it influenced much of this album. I'm currently looking for citations for the Outtakes section. --Brandt Luke Zorn 22:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The Outtakes section is now sourced. --Brandt Luke Zorn 07:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object per 1a. At the end of the articles there's a table under "Charts" which violates 1a, and as this is FAC and not FLC it can be turned into prose. LuciferMorgan 04:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• You mean you want the chart tables turned into prose? If not, I'm confused over what you're asking to be done, and I haven't yet seen a charts section without tables. --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• There should be prose that discusses its sales/chart performance. LuciferMorgan, from what I can tell, believes that the table of chart positions shouldn't exist at all, though every other editor I've seen contribute to discussions on this has disagreed and this is becoming borderline WP:POINT. (See also discussions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby., Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Doolittle (album) and Wikipedia talk:Record charts#Tables? Why?.) ShadowHalo 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not WP:POINT as I've objected per the 1. a. criterion actually, so don't hesitate to forget that. Furthermore, if I objected at your FAC ShadowHalo but not here (as they have the same issues) then that would mean I'm picking and choosing which I object to which would be biased wouldn't it? LuciferMorgan 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• So it should have a description of chart performances similar to, say, Hollaback Girl#Chart Performance? There's already (somewhat) a discussion of the album's sales here, though it isn't as in-depth as the Chart Performance section at Hollaback Girl. --Brandt Luke Zorn 17:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is the table is redundant. You have a "Reception and Aftermath" section already so are duplicating info - if you wish to keep the table info you could integrate the info into that section. LuciferMorgan 22:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I see what you mean, but the Reception and aftermath section is more general in its description of sales - e.g., it shows how many copies were sold total and other broad information. The charts section is more specialized in that it shows how well the album and singles did on specific charts, in a manner that is easy to read. Prose version of chart performance can be, despite their benefits, difficult to read and tedious to write. Besides, even if the entire chart performance was typed out in prose, a table still wouldn't be redundant, because it just presents the same information in an alternative method. --Brandt Luke Zorn 00:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with tables to text. Ceoil 00:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, objecting to 1(a) is not WP:POINT. And neither is objecting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. But once you have brought it up there and at Wikipedia talk:Record charts and the consensus from every user (aside from yourself) who has voiced an opinion is that the tables of chart positions should be kept, then continuing to make these objections at other articles is becoming pointy. If you disagree with the MoS, the answer is to generate discussion at the appropriate talk page(s), not to disrupt the FAC process with tangential discussions of the guideline in question. ShadowHalo 03:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Support. It's very good, but needs some work and a thorough copy edit:

• "It seemed that these comments were unfounded, however, a year later in June 1997 when the Pumpkins released their first single since their last album, Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness, "The End is the Beginning is the End" for the Batman and Robin soundtrack." - Badly ordered snake sentence. Loose "It seemed", and cut in two.
• "In August 1997, the three remaining band members entered" - remaining? Statment has not been qualified.
• "and they instead recruited previous producer Flood to serve as engineer" - awkward phrasing.
• "Listening carefully, one can hear the original "Lost Highway" recording in the bridge of the song." - WP:NOR.
• "Its instrumentation is similar to that in "Eye"." - needs to be cited; rephrase as "to that of Eye".
• "Adore is drastically different in approach and style from previous Pumpkins albums, and distorted guitars were notably absent from the album." - "drastically" in paticular needs to be cited.
• "The use of electronic instruments and drum machines gives the album an ambiance not heard before in the Pumpkins' music" - cite.
• The "Outtakes" section, to me at least, is low value info and borderline trivia - my preference would be to remove.

Overall a strong article, and I look forward to registering a support. Ceoil 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ok, I've fiddled with the problems you've mentioned and I hope that the article is now satisfactory. The one thing that I'm still reluctant to do is to remove the Outtakes section; However, if a considerable amount of other people complain about it then I will remove it. --Brandt Luke Zorn 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Not a fan of the Outtakes section, but overall: nice work, have switched to support. Ceoil 10:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support and your work on the article! --Brandt Luke Zorn 05:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ridge Route

• previous FAC
• FA review
• peer review

This was recently demoted for being not very good. I received a book through interlibrary loan and rewrote it. I feel it is now ready for FAC, and the book is due back in a week, so I would like to know before then if anything should be added or expanded. Thank you. --NE2 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The lead should be a little longer per WP:LEAD as it doesn't currently summarize the whole article the way an ideal lead should. Don't make it too long of course, that's worse. Otherwise it looks really good, nice work. Without time to evaluate in depth, I'll still conditionally support. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the lead summarizes the key points; what do you think is missing? --NE2 03:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:LEAD calls for 3-4 paragraphs, so expand a little bit on all of the most important topics in the article. - Taxman ^Talk 17:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I will look into that, probably tonight. --NE2 00:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I had an expansion written, but accidentally hit refresh and lost it. I'll give it another go after a short break. --NE2 22:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: The intro text should mention the current status of the road. Is it still used as a through route or local route, or is it closed to traffic completely, or is it now a park? I haven't read the rest of the article yet but I'll post comments later. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading through the article, I am voting to support as it looks complete and well-written. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• I never expected that I would enjoy an article about a road that much! I would like, of course a wider variety on sources, because the article relies on 90% on one book. But ... as I said, I like it very much; therefore I support.--Yannismarou 15:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well-written and all around a good article. --MPD ^{T / C} 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. With two Featured article candidacies and a review, this article sure has been through a bumpy road of its own, but it seems to have arrived here fine. Nicely done, a good read. Nall 07:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• I'd like to see a little more information about the current uses of the road, or at least the segments that are left. The talk page seems to indicate that part of it is in use as a fire road. Also, when it says, "the old Ridge Route has been largely covered by construction of the Ridge Route Alternate and Interstate 5", does "covered" mean that the old road was literally buried underneath the alternate and the Interstate, or does "covered" mean that traffic is now routed onto those roads and there's no reason to use the old Ridge Route any more? Overall, though, it looks like a solid article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: If you look at the overlay map, portions of Ridge Route were/are now underneath I-5. Ridge Route was a two lane highway that became Highway 99 and eventually I-5. I-5 is interstate freeway with a minimum of four lanes on each side of the median that covers portions of the old routes. Ronbo76 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ipswich Town F.C.

This article has undergone a significant improvement drive recently and has been improved in a number of areas. Several images have been added, all claims have citations, the recentism that afflicts most football club articles has been eradicated and all-in-all I think we have a very good shout for elevation to featured status. The Rambling Man 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support (of course). (As a contributor, I declare a COI) --Dweller 19:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Looking at the title of this article and the Central Coast Mariners FC article below, I think there should be some consistency in how the FC / F.C. is displayed. Has there been any discussion on which is preferred so that one can change? Cheers, darkliight^[πalk] 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  I know sheer weight of numbers isn't always the de facto guide to the right answer, but the Mariners article is the only one which says FC and not F.C. After all, F.C. is an acronym for Football Club so ought to be punctuated correctly. But that's just my opinion. Despite the FC vs F.C. issue, what do you think of the article? The Rambling Man 21:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Most football club articles are at F.C. There was some weight behind the idea of changing them all to FC (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive6#F.C._or_FC.3F), but it didn't get off the ground. Could be worth a bot request at some point though. Oldelpaso 22:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  Traditionally, Australian clubs have used "FC". CCMFC legally recognise themselves as FC (see this), and basically every reference made to CCM using the full name (FC/F.C. included), which is rare, uses the non-dots version. If Ipswich is F.C., the Mariners isn't changing because FC is more common. There is no real need for consistancy because they are basically unrelated (country, league etc.), and regardless, judge both articles on their merits, not their names. Daniel Bryant 08:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Calm down, I wasn't judging the articles at all. It just seemed a bit odd that one article was using punctuation and the other wasn't. I thought it was just a consistency issue between our articles, not that some clubs used it 'officially' while others didn't. darkliight^[πalk] 09:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  My apologies if I came across abrash or incivilly - it wasn't my intention. This is an issue that, sadly, I feel relatively strongly about on Wikipedia. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  No problem at all. darkliight^[πalk] 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good article. Could perhaps do with a sentence or two more about the imoprtant Robson period, Arnold Muhren, Frans Thyssen - the first real European stars of the English game - famously beating Man Utd 6-0 in 1980(?). It is overshadowed presently by the unremarkable Llyall period. Then I'd support.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Done
• Oh, and support, my second-favourite team in English football is done justice by this article. Daniel Bryant 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Despite it being very good already, I have given it a very light copyedit. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaelas10's support

• Comments Support. The peer review pretty much covered it all. A few comments of my own; remove all the fan sites from the external links section as only reliable sources need to be included per WP:EL. Second reference lacks parameters. ...enjoyed brief success - Grammar. ...just two years - POV. Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale. "In popular culture" sections have the lowest priority, thus needs to be added right before the "References" section. Sentence captions should all end with a period per WP:MOS. The #64 reference is a note, please separate it using {{note}} to avoid confusion. ...The Blues, Town or The Tractor Boys - Serial comma. What are the purple/yellow/light blue lines in Image:ITFC record.png? A color map should be made at the caption or at least the image description page. ...resigned in May 1987, after reaching the promotion play-offs - Unnecessary comma. As of March 13, 2007 - Keep the date formatting constant. ...but worse was to follow - The sentence isn't an opposition of the previous. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 11:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the detailed response. I'll take the comments to the article talk page and work on them in detail there. --Dweller 12:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

All of Michaelas10's comments have been actioned or rebutted at the article talk page, with one exception to-date:

• Image:Ipswich Town badge.gif and Image:Old ITFC Crest.gif lack a fair use rationale.

I have no experience of fair-use rationale and would welcome assistance. --Dweller 14:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added them myself. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 14:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant. All done for this set of comments then. Thank you Michaelas10 - the article's considerably improved as a result. --Dweller 14:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -qualifies all criteria. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 17:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oldelpaso's support

• <Conditional support As youth players are not generally notable enough to have their own article, the list of youth players should not be included. Other than that, its all good. Oldelpaso 11:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's just been raised at the article talk page. I've removed the section. --Dweller 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Minor Opposes "fierce rivalry with East Anglian rivals Norwich City, their nearest neighbours to the north in Norfolk, with whom they have contested the East Anglian Derby 134 times since 1902" needs to sourced. If there is a source for this somewhere eles in the article as I've been informed this shouldn't be too difficult. Buc 12:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • As already discussed on our talk pages, this statement is in the Lead section, which briefly states the main points covered in the article. The article gives sourced data on this issue (and all the other claims in the Lead section, now you mention it). There seems to be consensus that there's no need to cite the information twice and a casual glance through WP:FA shows this is a common (though not the only) way to approach the lead section. --Dweller 12:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also no piont giving the same information twice. Remove it from the lead if it's mentioned later then. Buc 12:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the way articles work Buc. The lead summarises the main points of the body. As the rivalry is a main point, then it goes in the lead and is elaborated the body.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 12:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The lead is written in the same style as a number of other featured articles, and I can't see how it fails WP:LEAD. It is allowable to mention points in the lead and then elaborate in the body, it is, however, unacceptable to introduce new ideas in the lead. But thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man 16:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Support The honours section should clarify that "runners-up" means league runners-up. The paragraph beginning "Robson left..." and ending "...award for Burley" can be split into two to make it uniform with the rest of the section. Other than that, a good article. SteveO 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Honours section clarified as suggested, thanks. The Rambling Man 16:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Para split as suggested The Rambling Man 16:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - all issues resolved, fantastic article. Excellent work by Dweller and The Rambling Man. HornetMike 13:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony1's objection

Oppose - 1a. The prose needs cleaning up throughout. Here are random examples:

• "The club was founded in 1878 but they did not play as a professional club until 1936" - Remove "they".
• "The club won the league three further times, in 1929–30, 1932–33 and 1933–34" - "three further times" is clumsy; why not remove it altogether?
• "The club was immediately relegated the following season" - Relegated to what?
• "Major success came with Ipswich Town's only FA Cup trophy in 1978, beating Arsenal in the final at Wembley Stadium" - what, the trophy beat Arsenal?
• En dashes are used throughout, so why not for scores, such as "6–0"?
• Audit use of commas, for example "A poor start to the season, culminating in a 2-0 defeat at Grimsby Town meant that Burley was ..." - Where's the second comma enclosing the nested phrase?

Please don't just fix these examples. Tony 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on Tony1's talk page and will take these concerns to the article talk page to deal with in detail. --Dweller 09:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All of these concerns have now been addressed, bar "Please don't just fix these examples". --Dweller 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Support - very good article, matches the criteria. Bigmike 19:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Smith

It has reached all of the Featured article criteria:

• It is well written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
• It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects.
• It has images.
• It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail.

--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 19:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object Image problems. All the fair use images are too large; the longest dimension should not be more than 400px. Please shrink the images, reupload them, and tag them with {{subst:furd}}. The fair use images all need detailed fair use rationales. Also, Image:Devoutdemocrats.jpg doesn't even have a copyright tag. ShadowHalo 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose pending the following issues: Coaching style section should probably be made into paragraph form, paragraphs in the lead should be condensed—several 1-2 sentence paragraphs in the lead is unacceptable, as a matter of fact there are too many short paragraphs throughout the article. The short paragraphs have the effect of making the article choppy as thoughts appear independently and randomly. Think of ways to condense them into larger paragraphs using sentences that bridge the gap between thoughts. Prose could use work also, here's a few examples:

"After the 1966 season, Smith would never finish lower than third in the ACC" would never finish is clumsy, just change it to "never finished".

"his decision about whether or not to replace a struggling Matt Doherty as" the or not is redundant and uses unnecessary wording. Just change it "his decision about whether to replace"

"He had said that if he ever felt he could not give his team the same enthusiasm he had given it for years, he would retire" This needs work.

Also there are a lot of self contained sentences that don't flow together with the surrounding material. Especially in the Recognition section, look at this section of the Michael Jordan article I helped write for a comparison. Incidentally the recognition section should probably be renamed Legacy, and should include some quotes about him. Furthermore, the article could use a little critical commentary of him, such as how his system was sometimes criticized for being too team oriented (such as in the old joke "Who's the only person that can hold Michael Jordan under 20 points?"). Quadzilla99 18:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition the section on his coaching career could use significant expansion as well. Quadzilla99 18:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Endgame tablebase

This article discusses a chess database program that lies at the intersection of computer science and game theory. I've taken great effort to write and rewrite the text, to cite more than thirty references going back to the 1970s, and to upload two images, and to develop related articles, namely EG (magazine), ICGA Journal, and GBR code. The references need a little more formatting, but other than that, I think it's ready to be featured. YechielMan 18:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Nicely written, but some technical things need better explanation. The Background section suddently refers to GBR classes 1000, etc., without even a wikilink to look up. A few other issues:

• The lead should be longer (2-3 paragraphs) in order to summarize the article
• The image of Guy Haworth has a licensing problem (fair use, possibly replaceable).
• I find it odd to see Harvard references footnoted.
• Somewhat of a personal pref, but is there a way to avoid linking to other sections of the article?

Gimmetrow 07:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I'll respond one by one:

• Lead needs to be longer. Agreed. I'll work on it.
• Guy Haworth.jpg has a licensing problem. Maybe. Depends how you define "replaceable"; I don't have access to a free image of him. I may be able to email him and just ask; would that work? Of course, if it's a problem, I'd rather lose the image and get the FA status than the other way around.
  • Resolved. I emailed him, and he gave permission. YechielMan 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Footnotes on Harvard references. If you click the references, you'll see that what I did was to add "see also" journal articles alongside Harvard references for the two books I was using. If you see a better way of doing this, be bold and fix it, or suggest it here.
• Linking to other sections of the article. Of course there's a way - just remove the link. I'll do that. YechielMan 09:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've now modified the article to address every point in your comment above to the best of my ability. YechielMan 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The image still has a licensing problem. A "no derivatives" and wikipedia-only license doesn't help downstream re-users of WP. Refs 16, 18 and 29 need author/title/date info. Also "ibid" is discouraged as a later editor may add text in between without copying citation info. Gimmetrow 03:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose I could ask Mr. Haworth if he's aware of the GFDL and that other sites might use the photo also. My initial impression is that he's okay with that. That being said, since the image is marginal to the main subject of the article, I'll make the following compromise: I'm not going to delete it, but if anyone else wants to delete it, I won't stand in the way. Obviously, the other image (the screenshot at the top) meets the FUC, and there also I can email the guy and ask permission, which I'm almost certain will be forthcoming. YechielMan 01:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I changed my mind, and tagged the Haworth image for deletion as CSD G7. That should put the issue to rest. YechielMan 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I addressed the problem of refs lacking author/title/date info. The image licencing is still less of a problem than before, right? If the image was removed or the problem otherwise solved, would you support the nomination then, Gimmetrow?--ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the references. YechielMan 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• More comments: In the "a priori" section, wikilinking in section headings should be avoided. In this section - I'm confused what "sticking" the pawns means. They are blocked, they can't move, and captures are handled by the 5-piece table. Later, saying that a quoted statement "presumabaly" refers to something is a minor form of original research. Could the last section, "footnote on nomenclature" be merged into the "background" section or would that give the issue too much weight? I generally like the article, but I need some time to sit down and read the whole thing again for overall prose before supporting. Gimmetrow 01:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • All good points; most of the problems were from lazy copying or editing. Thanks for pointing them out. Regarding the nomenclature issue, originally I had it near the top of the article (see history versions from before this month), but when I did the rewrite I decided it wasn't important enough to place near the top. This might be the kind of question where another pair of eyes could find a creative solution. YechielMan 01:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fixed everything except the nomenclature issue. I just had an idea: in the lead, we could put a sentence like "Other names have been used," and then cut-and-paste the footnote as an inline citation, with the footnote's internal references given in parentheses. Tell us what you think about that. YechielMan 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I prefer not cluttering the lead section. I think the Footnote about nomenclature -chapter should just be named Nomenclature and made a sub-heading of the Background-chapter at the end of it. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tentative support. Made a few edits. Removed a few abbreviations not used later, a self-reference to the article, and a few seemingly unnecessary "thus" and "also". Felt the lead needed to say something about how a "computerized database" was somehow able to see mates "far beyond the horizon of ... computers." The text has instances of both "6 pieces" and "six pieces" - unless there is some reason, it might be better to write out all numbers below ten. Can anything be done about the two images in "Step 2" squeezing the text in between? Does Kasparov's Advanced Chess merit a mention somewhere? Gimmetrow 19:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I changed the diagram layout in Step 2, how do you like it now? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The third image was off the edge on 800 width, so tried something else which looks a little odd on 1600 width but seems a fair compromise. Hope this works. Use of the word "also" is often unnecessary; removal tends to improve the prose. Gimmetrow 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Luckily we have the {{chess diagram small}} so I changed the layout again. As three diagrams next to each other is still too wide for a 800-pixel horizontal resolution I applied a little CSS hack which allows the diagrams be next to each other if there is space but go on top of each other on a narrow screen. How's that for a compromise? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 08:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RKO Pictures

I think that this is one of the best works of Wikipedia. Tomer T 15:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose refs have yet to be correctly formatted. See article on main page for reference styles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Refs now properly formatted (and sources list added) in style consistent with other recent Filmmaking WikiProject FAs (e.g., Kinetoscope).—DCGeist 08:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Style "consistent with other recent Filmmaking WikiProject FAs" isn't the standard on FAC. Publishers should be clearly identified on all sources. As an example, please explain how http://www.film-center.com/ is a reliable source. Oppose, until sourcing and references are clarified. External links also include a number of personal websites that could be pruned. Agree that the middle of the article is very listy, and the images bracketing the TOC are jarring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, that combination of website and author does not qualify as a reliable source--it was also an unnecessary source, as the note cites three reliable published sources covering all the relevant information in the main text. Any other online sources cited in the article that seem unreliable? (Publishers seem pretty clear--as the publisher was perfectly clear in the case you mentioned. Can you point to where they're missing?)—DCGeist 03:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• P.S. Of course, consistent style within the WikiProject isn't the standard on FAC. The standard is the standard. Project consistency is the cherry on top.—DCGeist 03:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The middle part of the article is too listy. The section The Astaire–Rogers RKO films, Hepburn and Grant at RKO and Robert Mitchum at RKO — these sections IMO need summarization. Yes, these actors are intimately associated with RKO. However it would be better if daughter articles/lists are created and these sections are summarized. Also, the two poster images flanking the Table of content looks odd. Those images could be incorporated somewhere in the text. The last image of classic closing logo, that one should be right aligned. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm...General guidelines certainly do argue against lists, even purely objective ones such as these three. On the other hand, users may find them particularly useful in this context and there's really no way to summarize them. They're either there or they're not--simply linked to. Disagree on the other points. The two images flanking the TOC looks attractive and is a very efficient way of introducing several of the leading figures associated with RKO and visually encapsualting the transformation of the studio from the 1930s to the 1950s. Ending the main text of the article with the centered closing logo is a fine design concept. Why right align just to save a couple inches/milliseconds of screen scrolling?—DCGeist 23:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes those lists may be summarised, in the sense that two new articles (or lists) can be created named "RKO films starring Robert Mitchum" (or something like that) etc. Now in this article a section called "Grant, Hepburn and Mitchum at RKO" can be created where the major films of those actors can be discussed in prose form. Movies that became particularly popular can be discussed in one sentence or so (if not already mentioned in any other part of the article). Why they were so intimately associated with RKO can be mentioned. At the start of this section, the newly created articles/lists are to be mentioned as "main articles".

Now, you can wait for what other people have to say, because it's not a rule that you cannot have lists in the article, it's just a trend.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Understood now. I couldn't see what you had in mind. I think, in the context of this article, the lists actually do the job better than the sort of narrative section you propose--which would not align with the chronological arrangement of the rest of the narrative--but it's an arguable alternative. As you suggest, let's see what others have to say. Thank you.—DCGeist 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, you need better fair use rationales. While they may very well be proper usages of poster the fair use poster tag says they can only be used for commentary on the film or the poster itself... so, your fair use rationale should explain why they qualify in this article. Same goes for screenshots. You may want to get trailer screenshots if you can find them because apparently many of them aren't copyrighted. gren グレン 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• A bit confused here... Every single image has a pretty detailed rationale, whose last bullet point is quite specific to the image's use in this particular article. Can you identify those rationales you believe are specifically inadequate?—DCGeist 08:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oy! I am not used to the rationales being below the licensing so I didn't scroll down. Sorry about that :) --gren グレン 08:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wyoming

A general good article, very well written, lots of references, pictures. No mistakes, and good enough to be a featured article. Retiono Virginian 13:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Article has only 6 references , too many data charts and is lacking in information overall.--MONGO 14:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. My quirk as a reader only, but I love to read about transportation systems when I look at a geography article. Unfortunately, the trasnportation section in this article is just a bunch of highways, and this need either expansion or a paragraph with a pointer to a side article "Transportation in Wyoming" or something like that. In general the article is pretty good however, with a decent number of illustrations, although I am not all that good at distinguishing the brilliant prose from the other prose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Firm Oppose This is not Featured Article quality. While the prose is excellently written, the sheer amount of figures and data which is unsourced is staggering. Six sources, true, but three of them are from the 2000-2005 US Census. Just looking at the article, I can see a lot of room required for sources. Additionally, there's a few items which could be substantially improved. The following is a list of things which caught my eye:
  • "Although French trappers may have ventured into the northern sections of the state in the late 1700s, John Colter, a member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, was probably the first white American to enter the region in 1807." (What's the source of this statement? And we need something better than "Was probably?")
  • "In 1869, Wyoming extended much suffrage to women, at least partially in an attempt to garner enough votes to be admitted as a state. In addition to being the first U.S. state to extend suffrage to women, Wyoming was also the home of many other firsts for U.S. women in politics." (This definitely needs sourcing as well, especially in regards to the statement that it was so Wyoming would have enough votes to count as a state.)
  • "Wyoming was the location of the Johnson County War of 1892 which was fought between large cattle operators and free ranging interest groups. This war was fought because of the new ranchers moving in following the passage of the homestead act." (Another statement in need of sourcing, especially the second sentence.)
  • Transportation needs to be turned into prose. It would would take all of two paragraphs to give the reader a lot more context about how those highways and interstates cross Wyoming, and I'm sure there's got to be railway information as well.
    • For example, Interstate 80 could be changed to read something like "The Interstate 80 runs east to west through the southern end of Wyoming, passing through (insert major cities here), crossing (insert other major roadways).
  • Likewise Sports needs to be turned into prose.
  • State Symbols could be turned into prose as well, and the trivia about the USS Wyoming could probably be moved up to the lead-in paragraph of the article so that you don't have the Trivia-like "Miscellaneous information" header.

Address those items and I'll support this nomination. Cheers, Lankybugger○ speak○ see○ 16:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments: Lot of problems need to be solved. A very non=comprehensive sample:
  • The 2nd sentence of the lead just shouldn't be the 2nd sentence. Surely there are much more important things to say about Wyoming.
  • "The region known today as the state of Wyoming was originally inhabited by.." what is "originally"? Hash this out, since when, for how long?
  • "After the Union Pacific Railroad reached the town of Cheyenne, which later became the state capital, in 1867" -- confusing. Which of the 2 happenned in 1867?
  • "which became the world's first National Park in 1872" -- citation needed.
  • "In 1869, Wyoming extended much suffrage to women" -- clarify "much suffrage"
  • "Wyoming is an alcoholic beverage control state." -- explain briefly what this is.--ppm 00:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Good for some report. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 19:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Needs work. Most of the article is lacking inline citations. I could let that slide for the basic geography sections, but the history section definitely needs citations. The section about coal in the economy doesn't really mention that most of the coal comes from the Powder River Basin. (It's so important that the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad is planning a billion-dollar expansion to tap into it. It's already a busy facility for the BNSF Railway and the Union Pacific Railroad.) Finally, some explanation for the low sales tax and the absence of an income tax would be useful. Does the state make most of its revenue from the mining industry, or do they just have low spending? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeopteryx

From the People who brought you Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Compsognathus & many many more, comes Archaeopteryx, hopefully the next Featured Dinosaur! Seriously though, this is another great article from the Wikiproject Dino team & it has come a long way in the last month or so & I'm proud to be able to nominate it. It has 34 inline ciations & many more references. It is informative, thourough & easy to read. It has pictures to boot & is one of my pet projects. But enough about my opinion, I'll just let you make your opinion up on your own... Thanks a bunch! -- Spawn Man 06:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as a contributor and helper. I feel the article is as comprehensive as it can be and the prose is good. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 11:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: it is comprehensive, well illustrated, well referenced and well written. ArthurWeasley 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article is good but lacks information on the ecology/lifestyle of the birdie in question. While this is some cases speculative it is at least speculation by the people actually studying it. For example, there has been debate as to whether Archaeopteryx was a ground living or a climber, or both. What it actually was is a separate question to what it evolved from or hiow flight evolved. More importantly the islands that it lived on around are well described, being semi arid with little ground cover, so its unlikely it was principally a glider from trees. I think it needs a bit of this type of information before I can support. I have been collecting info on just this so I will try and add it myself, if you like. I'm just sort of swamped, which is why I haven't done it yet. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well if you can do it, that would be great, but we'd prefer to have no guessing in the article unless it's cited. A quick reference to your point in the Paleobiology section would be great if it's referenced, but I don't know if the other guys have any books on the subject - maybe why it would be better if you would be able to do it or lend us the book or something. Thanks, Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

My last FA had 60 refs, so I understand the importance of refs! That's why its taking me some time. I'll try and do it this weekend. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, sounds great. We can go over it once you've added it to make sure it's all polished & acceptable. Thanks SS... :) Spawn Man 00:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support now that the section on paleoecology is added. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support: I gotta say, you guys do excellent articles. Very thorough, yet not overly verbose, grade-"A"vian work! The only suggestion I have is in the summery section in the taxobox, where the "see text" line could be changed to a quick-link within the article ([Archaeopteryx#Summary|see below]) just to make things more accessible. Just a little quirk that isn't required; you have my support regardless. Nall 23:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your support, kiind words & for the great suggestion. I've made a link in the taxo box now. :) Spawn Man 23:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comments - in the lead the article compared the size to a magpie - that name refers to about 20 different birds which is confusing for the "international" reader, could we have a more specific comparison (the exact magpie species) or just mention the wingspan and length in the lead. Second, the taxobox says that the article is about Archaeopteryx lithographica, but the lead says that there are 11 species identified so far. Is it an article about the genus or the species? If it is an article about the whole genus then it could use a list of the accepted species. I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition. --Peta 04:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree about the magpie. Will tweak to reduce ambiguity. The article refers to 11 specimens (as opposed to species) which are 11 individual fossils not species. Now that you've pointed it out maybe fossils is a better term here. Spawny? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So is there just a single accepted species currently? --Peta 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I agree we should make it plain in the text that there is only one recognized species. ArthurWeasley 04:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, why are you looking at me Cas? I only write the articles... ;) Erm, not quite sure what to do here, but I know the article is about the genus, not the species as the article is Archaeopteryx, not Archie lithographica. Other than that, I'll leave it to the people who can tinker around with that sort of thing as I'm not that experienced, sorry guys... Peta - "I think the paleobiology section will be a great addition" - The article already has a paleobiology section? Erm, maybe you were refering to the environment section that's going to be added by sunbird? Never mind though... :) Thanks for your comments... Spawn Man 08:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe there may be copyright issues with the photos of the Oxford University Museum reconstruction. This is essentially a sculpture, and would be assumed under copyright, unless it is very old.--Pharos 17:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time we have come across this argument at FAC, though there are ten prior Featured dinosaur articles which use images of fossils and life reconstructions. Drawings and paintings of fossils are certainly protected under copyright law (as long as they are not copyright-expired) because they are an artistic interpretation of what the specimen looked like. Casts and moulds of fossil bones require no artistic skill (only excellent technical ability in reproducing the fossils faithfully), and the assembly of moulds of fossils is based on scientific evidence, not artistic effort (though artistic licence may come into play with less well-preserved genera, such as Protoavis). The feathers on Archaeopteryx are preserved in the fossil record; the sculptor is basing his or her work on actual fossils. Another sculptor who created an Archaeopteryx sculpture based on the same fossils and who ended up creating a very similar model would not be infringing on copyright because both artists based their work on the same fossils, which themselves are not under copyright protection. A photograph of a cast, mould, or sculpture of fossils is a derivative work. But the work it is derived from, unless artistic licence used to great extent, is a technical representation (a rigorous skeletal reconstruction), not a work of creative art. The only portion of the model which is clearly, undisputedly artistic in nature (based entirely on artistic interpretation) is the coloring of the feathers, since the coloring has not been preserved on any specimen. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that some image copyrights may have been dealt with poorly in the past. I think it is clear that any sculpture involves significant artistic talent and license. Look, if Madame Tussauds makes a realistic waxwork of Queen Elizabeth, one based on photographs providing far more definite background info than that available for a fossil species, is not that sculpture copyrightable? It is a strange idea that a 3-D sculpture would be less creative than a 2-D drawing.--Pharos 21:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This analogy appears sensible, but it is not apt: for this to be a good analogy, Madame Tussauds would have to base their reconstruction on moulds of Queen Elizabeth's skeleton, something they probably will not do. Reconstructions of dinosaurs are based on moulds of the bones and preserved fossil evidence. Skeletal drawings are artistic interpretations of the bones, not castings and impressions of actual fossils. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But this is a sculpture, not a casting. I think you're tripping off of the idea of "artistic" work. Copyrights don't just apply in an art gallery — the same copyright falls on creative scientific work. This type of reconstruction require myriad real human decisions, that could never be automated. That constitutes real serious creative work.--Pharos 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you've convinced me; this is indeed a sculpture, not a casting, so your point seems correct. As such, this issue deserves attention. I cannot find information on when this piece was created, and it seems likely to me this sculpture was created after 1922. There are indications Australian law allows "sculptures or works of artistic craftsmanship that are on permanent public display (in a public place or in premises open to the public) may be reproduced without the permission of the copyright owner"[4][5] but I didn't find much about U.S. copyrights on derivative works (where Wikimedia's servers are located) or U.K. derivative works laws (where the sculpture is held) for sculptures which are on permanant public display. I must then assume a "fair use in.." rationale might be more appropriate. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Came back today to this rather unusual discussion. Yes they are sculptures. However they have been donated for use of the museum. The question is, does the museum permit photographs of those sculptures? If the answer is yes, then that is a form of free use liscencing as the museum has allowed you to take pictures of the art work. If the answer was no, then the images would count as illegally aquired images & would not be allowed to be shown anywhere else. I know for a fact that in most cases the museum in which the sculptures where taken does allow photos for this kind of display & therefore have waved their copyrights. Plus, many other examples of this go on throughout Wikipedia & unless a huge overhaul is made, it will continue to do so. So I hope this answers your concerns, but no, these are legal & there is no need for you to worry Firsfron... Thanks, Spawn Man 04:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowing picture-taking in the museum is not carte blanche for allowing unlimited numbers of freely-distributed copies of those photos to proliferate on multiple web sites, some of which (Wikipedia) are non-profit while others (some Wikipedia mirrors and data-scraping sites) are for-profit entities. I think perhaps a fair use rationale should be established for these images, especially when considering these images would appear in a Featured Article: no copyvio (or perceived copyvio) should make it through FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be the case if it was an oil painting or the like (which is why you're not allowed to take photos in galleries) But if a mueseum makes public their sculptures, then it is allowed to be reproduced to an extent. A possible resolution would simply be for someone to go to the mueseum & say "Hey, is it okay if I put 1 or 2 of these on wikipedia? Thanks"... They are not fair use, as the photographer created the photograph & it is not entirely of the sculpture or work. Let's face it though, when someone donates a scuplture to a public place, they know it's going to be photographed. What about street sculptures that have been recently added to streets? Are they under copyright too? No, the reproduction of the exact same sculpture is illegal, but taking a photo of it is not. Taking a photo & saying it is your sculpture is, but giving credit to the artist is not. And besides, I've seen this argument before on here & I'm making the same points which they were... Spawn Man 05:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this whole debate is silly. If I take a photograph of a sculpture, it doesn't matter how old the sculpture is or who made it. My photograph of it constitutes a brand new work and is copyrightable to me not the sculptor. Here is what our very own Featured Article Director has to say on the subject (from Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ):

James and I wrote the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ to give people a basic understanding of copyright law. It's a bit confusing in this case -- basically, pictures of 2D works old enough to be in the public domain (created before 1922) are also public domain, regardless of when the picture was taken (because a picture of a public domain picture is still public domain, according to the Bridgeman case). However, for 3d objects such as statues, taking a picture (which involves deciding what angle, among other things) involves creative input. This creative input is large enough to warrant a new copyright. Thus, picture of 3D objects are copyrighted.

So there should be no problem whatsoever with the photos of the life reproductions, provided the photographers have released the images under free licenses. And the casts? Those aren't art; those are things that were found in the earth and dug up. — Brian (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A little further reading down that page, and it seems that the case isn't quite as clear-cut, but it appears that the laws of the UK do follow the "photo of 3D object on public display is new piece of art" argument, so we should be OK here. — Brian (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear this work required as much creative input as any art piece. The "freedom of panorama" in most counties applies only to the outdoors; it is broader in the UK but the legal wording is a bit unclear. At first I was skeptical, but after a fair amount of research at Artlaw, I believe that UK freedom of panorama does indeed apply to all permanent 3-D exhibits in galleries and museums (even those that charge admission, apparently). I'm very glad to have learned of this, as it could apply very broadly in the UK, to artistic works as well as scientific ones. Therefore, I drop my objection to the photos in this article, assuming that the archaeopteryx model was on permanent exhibition. Please note, however, that almost no other country (maybe Austria) has freedom of panorama laws that liberal.--Pharos 17:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, Pharos, and Spawn Man. Brian, I really appreciate your clearing this up with the link to the FAQ. This is very good to know (and I don't think the discussion was at all silly), and may prove helpful with later Dinosaur FA Candidacies. User:Ballista took many of our photos of dinosaur life sculptures in UK museums, and although we always thought there was no problem using them, it's good to know we really can. That is a huge relief. Last night, I attempted to add a fair use rationale to the first picture, when I discovered it had been uploaded to WikiMedia Commons, which obviously doesn't allow Fair Use images. The image would have been deleted as a copyvio; it could have been moved back to en.wikipedia, but this is much better. Anyway, thanks everyone for the input. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha! I knew I was right, even if my wording was a bit off... :) Spawn Man 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as it happens you were wrong. If this model was being exhibited in any country other than the UK, the image would not be free. Please keep that in mind.--Pharos 00:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No I was talking about the UK (Erm, yes... of course I was...), so therefore I am right. ;) God, no need to nit pick on who's right & wrong Pharos... Gosh! :) Spawn Man 01:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just trying to discourage you from considering all stuff in museums PD. No ones-upmanship intended, I assure you :)--Pharos 03:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support as a contributor and helper. I didn't want to support until individuals from both WP:Birds and WP:Dinosaurs had worked on the article and added their input. Now that that has happened, I feel comfortable supporting. This is one of the longest dinosaur articles, and it appears to me that all the important details have been covered: each of the specimens is discussed, there's a synonomy section which discusses the taxonomic mess, the Hoyle and Protoavis controversies are touched upon (but not given undue weight). I cannot judge the prose, as I'm too familiar with the text, so I will leave that to be judged by someone else. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support yet another good article on prehistoric animals (since this isn't technically a dinosaur...) igordebraga ≠ 17:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ha! All birds are dinosaurs; just not all dinosaurs are birds. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

God, not this debate again - I had enough of it during the Dinosaur FAC... ;) Spawn Man 04:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Barrier Reef

I was using this page for much research and this article answered every single question I had. Also, no missing citations. Very good article in my opinion. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 20:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Whats here is reasonable, good in places. But the article is heavily slanted towards human interactions with the reef. Two small sections on geography and species of the reef are unbalanced compared to the threats and uses section. The species of the reef section is also heavily balanced towards large fauna, vertebrates basically. No mention is made of the ecology and biological processes of the reef (except insofar as how we are destroying it), the reef cays, and in general I don't think the natural side of the story is covered in enough depth. Sorry. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

About the "No mention is made of the ecology and biological processes of the reef (except insofar as how we are destroying it), the reef cays, and in general I don't think the natural side of the story is covered in enough depth.", the German Wikipedia has some information on that side of things. I believe the article there has some kind of Good Article-like status. Unfortunately, I don't speak German. I filed a translation request some six months ago, but nothing has come of it as of yet. (I've just done a horrible google-translation of the page... erk!) As for the bias towards the big and beautiful, I chose animals to feature in there based on what Wikipedia had articles for. (Although I did create the soft corals article myself, cos I couldn't believe it wasn't there...) -Malkinann 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Certainly a good article (love some of the pictures!), just not up to featured quality.

• The lead should be re-written to summarize more of the topics contained in the body.
• More about the geological/biological history of the reef. Include human uses (indigenous and "western/European" as well)
• Species reads like a "paragraph-ized" list and should be significantly expanded to cover the interactions between other ecosystems (open ocean, land, etc), natural predatory hierarchies and ecological stasis (what depends on what?), migration patterns, etc.
• "Environmental threats" read like stubs. The topics in human use should be promoted to their own categories and expanded more.

A quick read left me wanting to know more -- in good and bad senses alike. Madcoverboy 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Woah! Thanks for your faith in the article Anna (I've been working on and off it for about two years) but it's just plain not comprehensive enough for FA. It is a *huge* topic, and the article has slanted towards what's available/fashionable - which is the environmental threats. I've been a bit hesitant to add more information about the species on the GBR, as I'm not sure how much I could add from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/misc_pub/fauna_flora without it being a copyvio. In regards to Indigenous Australians, there's not a lot of information out there about how they used the GBR long ago. I've even attempted to look in "the literature", and I couldn't find useful information. If anyone would like to assist in the article, there's a very full to do list on the talk page, and I'll add any good points from this FAC. Madcoverboy, what do you mean by "The topics in human use should be promoted to their own categories and expanded more."?? I've been thinking of spinning out a page called Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef, is that what you mean? -Malkinann 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment I agree with above comments. The lead needs some work to get to FA standard as it should be expanded and summarize the article. The article also needs a cleanup in my view. Lots of one sentence paragraphs - pull these together into common thoughts. Expand and split (if approved) the sections that need those tasks and remove the banners. Perhaps a See also to direct me to similar articles that are not directly referenced in the article - other major reefs. Morphh ^(talk) 1:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please can you be specific about what other content you think the article should have?

I don't know much about the reef so I couldn't say what it should have. When I mentioned expanding, I was looking at your mention above that it wasn't comprehensive enough and the fact that it has tags (for expanding) on Geology and geography, Species, & Fishing. Morphh ^(talk) 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The article won't pass FA this time, but specifics would be appreciated for any future attempt. -Malkinann 02:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What kind of information would you like to see, then? I wrote a decent slab of the article, in my initial contributions, from my school notes, and as such, the article should serve school students well. For Featured Article, it has to be able to serve other audiences. Part of my trouble is that the most comprehensive resource available is the GBRMPA website, and I don't have the skill to tease out more than a paragraph and a half from any one page of theirs without feeling guilty. For example, I get the feeling that I could expand the 'species' section a lot from here, but I feel uneasy using just the one source, even if it is the best source available. (that, and it breaks my brain every time I try to read it.) -Malkinann 21:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Orb

I've been working on this article for quite awhile now and I think its finally ready for FAC (self nom). Its very well referenced and contains multiple cool free images with a minimum of unfree media. I think it has a good balance of band history, production techniques, and themes/whatnot with some good quotes. I will respond quickly to any suggestions, so feel free to offer up any suggestions you think it needs before its an FA. Thanks! Wickethewok 04:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this is a most excellent piece of work. I'm still reading through your latest revision but I continue to be impressed at the work you've done here.

While [at EG Records], he met KLF member Jimmy Cauty

Hmm... presumably Jimmy wasn't a KLF member when he met Alex, so that should perhaps be "future KLF member" or even just "Jimmy Cauty"?

Also, I'm a little confused by the statement. Did Alex and Jimmy meet at EG Records, or just during that period of time? Perhaps that could be cleared up. If it's the former, what was Jimmy's connection to the label, if any?

One other small point, there seems to be a few too many links, links which are for consecutive words and things like post punk rock music where the former is a subdivision of the latter and the reader can eventually click through to rock music anyway. I fixed that one, but I think there are others.

Finally (for now, as I've not finished reading), I'm not sure about the footnotes in the lead. The lead should be a summary of the body, so wouldn't it be best to cite everything except the potentially controversial in the body only? --kingboyk 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Much thanks, Kingboyk. I added the word "future" in - I think this is better, as I think it makes it less confusing later on. I removed the EG Records thing, as I don't think its particular relevant to The Orb as much as it is just Paterson. I removed some of the excess wikilinks, most notably the publication wikilinks, of which there were several redundant ones. I've heard varying opinions on citations in the lead, ranging from everything should be cited to nothing should cited... so I'm not sure on that... I look forward to anymore suggestions you have. Much thanks! Wickethewok 23:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The EG Records connection: some of Jimmy's old material was released on EG. (How should that article be named, anyway? EG? E.G.? E'G (as Discogs has it)?)
  • The book I have (Modulations) particularly plays up the EG connection, as they were milking the theme of Paterson as a sort of heir apparent to Eno. I have no idea how much of that's reality vs. just a romantic notion. –Unint 02:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The sources that I've read just mention Paterson working there in passing and don't mention Cauty in relation to EG. Does Modulations mention if Paterson/Cauty met this way? Wickethewok 05:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing so specific at all; actually, they make a point about how little information there is. It was just "Alex and his gang" from some point onwards. –Unint 23:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally responsible for a small gaffe, I'm afraid: a while ago I edited the last sentence of the first paragraph of "History" to give attribution to where the "ambient house for the E generation" actually appeared. However, this forced a mention of the "A Huge Ever Growing Pulsating Brain..." single before its proper introduction. I'm not quite sure how to rearrange everything to get it to make sense. –Unint 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe the source of the "E generation" should go in a footnote? Would that make more sense? But, yeah, introducing the name of the single before we get there is a little confusing. Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"History", section 2, last paragraph: why did FFWD lack direction as a result of the nature of the album? –Unint 02:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The source I have on this doesn't make quite so explicit a connection, but I tried to make this more clear. Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Attribute "another acrimonious departure from The Orb"? Actually, I read that reference (#30) and was particularly struck by the way Paterson behaved. Was this an isolated incident? –Unint 02:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Patterson is a bit odd in couple interviews, though that one I think is the most wonky. In others, though, he's pretty mellow, so I'm not quite sure... Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Overall structure: from 1995-2004 the history really paints a picture of overall negative critical responses. One paragraph after another takes the form of "many reviewers hated it, though this one publication had a positive quote". In addition, given that, saying that they then "began" to fall into "critical irrelevancy" by 2004 doesn't seem to gel with what's presented by the past several paragraphs. –Unint 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm, well basically, according to some retrospectives I've read, it seems that most of the UK critics didn't much care for much Orb stuff from 94-97, though the US critics did. I tried to make this clear - do you have any suggestions on how to make this more clear? As for Cydonia, I think RollingStone was the only one who supported it (I don't think I cited any positive reviews on this one). Bicycles was a balance of good and bad reviews - I've tried to make that more apparent. I agree with your "began" comment, and hopefully I've fixed it. I eagerly await your additional feedback, much thanks for your time and effort! Wickethewok 05:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Orb were finished after UFOrb in the UK, quite frankly (and rightly so imho!). Yet again I wish I'd kept my old music papers! Maybe the Librarian of Mu could help? --kingboyk 12:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've done some touch-ups. I hope I've eliminated the boring sort of format that Unint described in the article. If you want, you can check out the diff. I tried to remove a little of the critic opinions and replace them with some of their more objective comments about the albums. I also did a touchup of the intro. I think I've addressed all the concerns listed explicitly above (except for maybe how Paterson/Cauty met, though I don't know if this information is available anywhere). Any additional general/specific/whatever needs for this to become FA? Wickethewok 20:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kansas Turnpike

Because the old nomination had no outstanding objections, and per user:SPUI's request, I'm renominating this (previous FAC). Raul654 03:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support- Personally, I believe that it fits the criteria. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. What a freakin' article. It's not the most exciting topic in the world (to me, at least), but it's very well done. Fantastic job. JHMM13 05:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Don't see any problems meeting the criteria. Manderiko 13:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Warhol13 16:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In "early history" the paragraph on funding could be improved, and in the next paragraph, "After considering..." doesn't have a subject. Perhaps use a synonym to avoid "... travellers travelled..."? When talking about the speed limits, it says 80 was fixed, then the next sentence says it "would not be enforced anywhere again until..." I was confused - was 80 changed at some point? Might be nice to wikilink "trumpet" once in each subsection of interchanges - the link is at the start of the section but this might be easier on readers. Gimmetrow 17:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The sentence "After considering a number of different alignments, including one bypassing Topeka via the present route of I-35, an "airline" route was chosen between Wichita and Topeka" does have a subject, "route" (see italics above). I've clarified the speed limit section and fixed "travellers travelled". Trumpet links have been added. I'll have to think about ways to improve the funding paragraph. —Scott5114↗ 20:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
    • NE2 has further revised that sentence. —Scott5114↗ 21:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support About time USRD gets another featured article, but ultimately, this article is ready.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Map has no context. Maybe it might be better to show the entire state and/or to add labels for major cities. Also, I think it might be useful to add an exit table (or put a prominent link to an existing one at the top of each subsection of the Interchanges section). --Polaron | Talk 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a more detailed map with city names in the Routing section. Also, it did once have an exit table, but was converted to the interchange section, which provides more detail than just a flat table.—Scott5114↗ 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • That second map you're referring to is useful only once one knows the context. The map in the infobox is still useless. At the very least the entire state of Kansas and parts of neighboring states should be shown. A featured article is aimed at a general and global audience. Something similar to what Ridge Route currently has with the entire US shown might even be more useful here. In terms of the exit table, I personally find having to read through lots of text cumbersome. Tables make it easier to just quickly pick up the key points. A "See also" link to exit tables in the Interstate articles is probably sufficient for this purpose. It is a well-written article and deserves to be featured but at a minimum the map needs to show more context. Exit tables are not critical. --Polaron | Talk 15:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
      • A map showing the entire USA has been added. —Scott5114↗ 09:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, great article, with terrific sources. It is also well written as well with good pictures too. -- J-A10 ^{T · C} 2:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The lead looks a thin to me. The prose length should put the lead at about two - three paragraphs. Morphh ^(talk) 4:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose, fails 1c, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and should not be used to reference another article—Wiki articles are used numerous times as sources. Numerous sources indicate no publishers, and references are not consistently formatted. See WP:CITE/ES, or the cite templates for examples of how to format references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The references to the email on the wikipedia talk page are a problem. Refs to National Bridge Inventory should perhaps have an explanatory text saying "a database available at xyz.org". Gimmetrow 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Also, just found a reference to a Usenet post, not a reliable source: Ben Prusia, New East Topeka, KS Turnpike Exits Open Today SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
      • All refs use the cite templates. This was addressed in the other FA. The email is from the Kansas Turnpike Authority -- if KTA isn't a reliable source, then what is? No wiki articles are used as sources. I'll see what I can do about the Usenet post. —Scott5114↗ 05:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I think what User:SandyGeorgia could be referring to are the links in the references to Wiki pages (the maps, etc). In our defense, those aren't articles, they are images attributed and sourced. But I am not that user, so I cannot say what they mean. --MPD ^{T / C} 05:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I have to agree with MPD here. I don't see any reason why referencing an uploaded picture is a problem. Unlike a Wikipedia article, an uploaded file is effectively static. Raul654 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Also don't see a problem with a link to an image. Gimmetrow 19:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
          • [ec] Usenet post replaced by a KDOT press release. I'll see what I can do about replacing the KTA email, but finding that kind of information is difficult at best. —Scott5114↗ 05:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The links to Wiki images are problematic for the following reasons:

1. We should directly attribute our sources, not link to Wiki which *then* links to another source that needs to be evaluated for reliability. As an example, the second referenced image in the article is to an image that comes from http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/ so that site should be listed as the source.
2. Reliability of sources for images; for example, what is ajfroggie.com—is that a reliable source for this info?
3. ajfroggie is public domain ?

Terraserver-usa.com should be identified as publisher on maps, and there is a blue-linked reference that should be expanded ( http://www.route56.com/photobrowse.cgi?photo=10112 ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If the image is being cited to support some fact, then the source of the image could be given along with a link to the image. In general, if an image were being displayed in the article, it would need to be hosted on en or commons, and the source information would normally be on the image description page. How is this really different if the image is linked in a footnote? The authenticity of such an image is a separate issue, and would be the same issue whether it was displayed or linked. Gimmetrow 22:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I think it now satisfies the FA criteria. --Polaron | Talk 16:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armament of the Iowa class battleship

This article was spun off of the current Iowa class battleship article to help reduce the page size. It just cleared A-class on the Military History Wikiproject, so I am now fixed on getting it promoted to FA class. One minor note: I am in school at the moment, so if I appear slow to respond have patience; it is likely school work has me tied up. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support, excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written, lots of citations. Very well done. --Bryson 17:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak support Support Well written and coherent. Some claims need to be referenced, "Main battery" section needs some organization (sub-sections), there's only a mention in passing that the battleships have been decommissioned which might warrant a section or at least "see also" on what has replaced them. Some of the specifications of weapon systems might possibly be more appropriate on its respective page than on this page, use {{see also|}} templates. Madcoverboy 22:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a rather large section on the main Iowa class battleship page that discusses battleship reactivation vs battleship replacement through the eyes of the USN, Congress, and other parties privy to the discussion. Also, I can not cite your uncited claims if you do not mark said claims with {{fact}} or some other template to that effect; note that some claims contained in paragraphs have their citations at the end of the paragraph since one source was used for the section. I will look into the other suggestions forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment I went through and cleaned up a lot of spelling mistakes (in Mozilla's spellcheck, at least) and started to throw some fact tags on (see Discussion). I would also get a spot copy-edit job to verify the grammar, verb tenses, punctuation, and other style issues that can crop up, though nothing specifically jumped out at me. Madcoverboy 00:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Fact tags have been more or less addressed. I will check for Spelling and Grammar when my laptop recharges. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support This is very well writen congradulations. Tirronan 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose This article needs to have information about the year and preferebly month when each of the Iowa class battleships was fitted with or lost the arnaments mentioned in this article. This article omits another weapon the commander of this battleship had at his disposal - Marines and armed sailors, how many small arms (pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns etc) were on board a Iowa class battleship? Mieciu K 12:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a two parter, so for the sake of convience I will split it into two parts to answer the questions: 1) In broad strokes: New Jersey lost her 40 mm AA guns when reactivated in the late 1968 for the Vietnam war, and all of the Iowas had all of there AA guns yanked between 1982 and 1988 and replaced with the missile systems and CIWS systems mentioned in the article. The exact date that the refitting occured isn't mentioned in this article in part becuase that information is considered part of the ships history, and could be better presented in our articles on each of the individual ships, and in part because the dates offered only reflect the times in for the modernization. I will take a stab at finding exact dates, if you wish, but I do not hold much hope of finding exact information. 2) The nature of this question caught me off guard, I didn't figure anyone would raise any interest over thess particular types of weapons, so I didn't do a thorough look into it. Off the top of my head I known that Missouri had 40mm grenade launchers and 25mm chain guns installed in 1987 when called up for Operation Earnest Will, and as you pointed out I would assume that the battleships would carry firearms for marine use. I will do some reasearch into this, and if I can gather enough info create a section for your pistols, rifles, hand grenades, machine guns, etc, I will add a section to this effect; however, it may have to wait until the end of next week because I have upcoming tests I need to study for. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoa. The small arms of the Marine detachment on any man-of-war are NOT part of that ship's "armament". It's irrelevant and distracting to the nature of the article. The presumption that because the Marine detachment was aboard, it was at the "disposal" of the ship's captain is dubious at the very least for an Iowa class BB.--Buckboard 10:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support A great article. Qjuad 09:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. References are not fully formatted in any consistent bibliographic style. For example, Do battleships move sideways when they fire? is a website link, indicates no publisher, last access date, or author/publication date if available. Examples of reference formatting can be found at WP:CITE/ES, or cite templates can be used. If footnotes are manually formatted, at minimum, publisher should be identified on all sources, and last access date should be given for all websites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs).
  • Well, that was...unexpected. I didn't figure that folks would call me for the refernces. I have taken steps to adress the issue; as far as I can tell, I got them all, but you may notice one or two that need something else. PS: don't forget to sign your posts! TomStar81 (Talk) 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cholangiocarcinoma

Having worked on developing this article and requesting a peer review (which provided many helpful suggestions), I think it's now ready in terms of completeness, stability, referencing, and style to be considered for featured-article status. I'm happy to address any deficiencies or suggestions mentioned here to improve the article further. This is essentially a self-nomination. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Except for the staging section, metastasis isn't mentioned anywhere. Metastasis significantly influences prognosis and operability so I think this should be added (even though cholangiocarcinoma rarely has metastasized at the time of presentation). --WS 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Distant metastases are rare, and it seems that it doesn't really matter if you have locally advanced disease or metastatic disease; basically, if the tumor can't be resected for whatever reason, the outcome is poor. Do you have refs for metastasis specifically affecting prognosis? I haven't found any but I'll keep looking. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Only for lymph node metastasis: PMID 17278119 PMID 17006609 PMID 11224627 But it is also interesting to mention what the most common sites of metastasis are and like you say that distant metastasis is rare. --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment: after resection a five year survival of 17% is mentioned. Both emedicine and the oxford textbook of surgery pu it at 40%. Any idea which would be more correct? --WS 23:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Done There are a range of survival statistics, depending on the location of the tumor and which series you look at. I've expanded the section considerably to reflect the varying estimates of long-term survival - please take a look. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Better now. Support --WS 13:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well done. The lead could use some additional context to make it more accessible to the average reader. A large percentage of readers would not know where the bile ducts are or what they are. The second sentence tell us they're in or near the liver, but that would be better in the first sentence to ease the reader in. The picture helps, but not quite enough. In the sentence mentioning the left and right hepatic ducts that wording is really only useful to medical practitioners. It's particularly important that the lead is as accessable to everyone as possible. Need to reduce the number of short, one and two sentence paragraphs. There are several throughout. Otherwise looks quite good and I'd support with all that fixed. - Taxman ^Talk 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a shot. See what you think. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Still needs much more on merging or expanding the short paragraphs, I think I saw about 6 or 7. Now the lead has one. But that simple fix did make the lead more approachable. Now just expand it a little bit. - Taxman ^Talk 22:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through and tried to merge these. I think the short paragraphs don't look as awful or eye-catching to me because I'm using an 800x600 monitor (stone age, I know). It only takes a few sentences to fill the screen. If you see some more that are sticking out to you, feel free to merge them. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments very good, needs a couple of tweaks though:
  • When you say 'higher prevalence among Asian people', you should specify that (I presume) you mean people in Asia, not people of Asian ethnicity who live elsewhere.
  • I didn't think of this before, but the existence of HIV infection as a risk factor is only mentioned as a possible explanation for increasing rate of occurrence, but it's not strongly supported by the risk factors section. Is the mechanism for this known?
  • Did you manage to dig up any images? The pathophysiology section would be clearer with some pictures.
  • The very last sentence is very long and stringy; break it up into two (or note the use of a semicolon ;) Opabinia regalis 00:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Done I think. Take a look. As far as HIV, it has only been mentioned as a risk factor in one (fairly large) study. It did hold up as significant in multivariate analysis, but I think there's still a question as to whether HIV is directly involved or whether it's a marker for increased risk of hepatitis B/C and cirrhosis, which are clearly linked to cholangiocarcinoma. The mechanism by which HIV might predispose one to develop a cholangiocarcinoma is unknown, as far as I could find in my reading. Images: unfortunately, so far we've got what we've got, unless someone out there has something to upload. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support with the suggestion that the epidemiology section call HIV a 'potential risk factor' or somesuch. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Thorough, well-written article, nicely organized into sections and with neat, uniform citations. Here are a few suggestions, though, which are really just some loose ideas, because the article is very good as it is currently.
  • The article was understandable to a reader as unfamiliar with the subject as myself, but, as FAs are intended for a wide readership, I'd still recommend a few tweaks for accessibility. Perhaps more in-article explanation of technical terms would help. It's not a major concern, though, and the wiki-linking of technical terms already present in the article is very helpful.
  • The only national incidence statistics under the "Epidemiology" section are for the United States. Perhaps more data from such countries as Canada, the U.K., and Australia would be useful for comparison (although the difference between incidence in the Western and Eastern world is clear). Perhaps these data could be assembled into a table, which could be right- or left-aligned, if there was a concern that integrating this information into the section's prose would interrupt its flow.
  • Some illustrations of particular locations where cancer can develop in the bile ducts might help readers to better understand the points relating to the different effects that these different locations can have. This could be as simple as taking the bile duct diagram and adding a coloured dot. -Severa (!!!) 01:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doolittle (album)

An album by the alternative rock band Pixies. The article recently achieved GA status, and I think it meets the FA criteria. A self-nomination. CloudNine 17:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Remove the "initial reception" and "retrospect" subheadings; the change of subject is properly conveyed by the start of each paragraph. Combine the "end-of-year" paragraph with the preceeding paragraphs. There's some prose issues with the article as a whole that I'll get back to soon enough, but then again it's really just some awkward phrasing I can probably fix myself. WesleyDodds 09:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Removed section headers and combined "end-of-year" para. CloudNine 10:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I've only read a little bit so far and I'll come back to the article; but a few questions:

The album itself reached #8 in the United Kingdom, a unheralded chart position for the band. Songs such as "Debaser", "Wave of Mutilation" and "Hey" were highly critically regarded, and Doolittle, along with Surfer Rosa, is seen as the band's best work by critics.

• Why the hash before the 8?
  • It's similar to other featured album articles, which designate a chart position by a hash before the number. See Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers) for typical usage.

Not required in my opinion. No need for impenetrable signs when we have words like "chart" available. qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's to signify 'number'; but it's not crucial anyway, so I've removed them. CloudNine 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the pound signs. They are necessary in this context. Remember that the Pixies are an American band and so American English is used in the article. Andrew Levine 17:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• What does "unheralded" mean in this context? In my opinion, some DJs had already heralded the band. Quite a fuss had been made about them in indy circles, for sure.
  • The chart position they achieved in the UK was far above their previous releases - such a placing could not have been and was not predicted, so it was unheralded.

I don't agree. The album was played and trumpeted on the radio in advance. Advance orders were high, including mine. "Unheralded" doesn't mean the same as "highest by far". You herald the record itself, not its chart position. qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Rephrased to 'unexpected success'. The impression that I get from reading through sources is that the record label and the band thought it would be more popular than Surfer Rosa, but not as popular as it was (in the UK anyway). CloudNine 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have no references for this, but I distinctly recall Doolittle being attacked by critics as a comedown from Surfer Rosa, which had been praised as a breath of fresh air for its short sharp songs. I can't remember where I read that response, but I would have been reading Melody Maker, NME, The Guardian and The Independent at the time. Note: I now see that you acknowledge this later in the article. I think this possibility is probably covered.qp10qp 01:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Tenses: "were critically regarded"/"is seen". Need to be very careful about tenses because it seems to me that though the Pixies are now canonical, it is forgotten that the three famous albums after Surfer Rosa were increasingly hammered by certain critics at the time, often in the most derogatory terms. This didn't bother the fans, though, who treasured all the albums. NME reader polls often departed from the views of its critics, who tended to be snarky. qp10qp 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll take a look at that. Thanks for your review! CloudNine 16:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find some of the reviews online, but they are from pre-internet days and are elusive. As you know, what happens is that most bands are forgotten—including many that were flavour of the month at the time—but those that are remembered become increasingly sanctified. Books, articles, and advertising materials about them quote selectively from reviews until the past is rewritten. I think this is because once a band reaches legendary status with the fans, the critics feel obliged to catch up and talk as if, for example, the Pixies phenomenon was inevitable in retrospect. Anyway, I still haven't read the whole article, and I will probably come back to bug you some more. (No need to answer this unactionable rambling.) qp10qp 20:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Extremely good point. I feel the article isn't very well sourced anyway (in terms of variety of sources), and they could certainly do with getting their hands on some NMEs, MMs etc from the time. Can anyone help? --kingboyk 00:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've actually spent another session looking, and I have to admit that the balance in the article is probably correct. I did find a contemporary NME review, I think on the Alec Eiffel site, and it was full of praise, though such fan sites aren't going to put up much negative stuff (there's a very negative concert review there, mind). The present article does show that not all reviews were positive: it mentions Time Out, and I realise that I used to read that, which is maybe where I remember the criticism from. I would say that the article could be more precise in distinguishing contemporaneous appraisal from later appraisal. Clearly the album has risen from being fourth in the NME for that year to second of all time now (so even when the album was praised in 1989, it was not effused over in the iconic terms that it is now). Another point to remember about sources is that feature articles and interviews, as today, tend to be sycophantic (or they wouldn't get the co-operation) and reviews more critical. In particular, I don't necessarily think the reference to this page [6] rates as a reliable source, since the website owner admits at the top that he has cobbled it together from various sources and added his own input (that site is good, but clearly its POV is fandom). qp10qp 01:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed source. It didn't really say anything that wasn't already cited.

• Support. This is an excellent encyclopedia article, just the right length for its subject. It strikes a balance between facts and figures, anecdote, and critical appraisal. The prose is of a clean quality and largely avoids the music-journalese of its sources. As a Pixies fan, I'm pleased that we now have such a comprehensive article on this album. Are you up for a Kim Deal article, then, CloudNine? (No shortage of material, one suspects.)
  • Yeah, definitely collecting sources for that one. I'm also looking to improve Surfer Rosa in the near future.

A few small points:

• 4AD, a small British independent record label, owned the worldwide rights to the Pixies, but had no distribution outside of the United Kingdom; the band had to import its previous records.' Not clear what the last part of that refers to, since we have just been told that they were signed to Elektra, which I thought was an American label (so import to where, if they were signed to labels in both countries?). What was Elektra's relation to the independent 4AD, if any?
  • According to my sources, the band signed to Elektra, but Elektra didn't acquire distribution rights for their next album until two weeks before Doolittle was released. I've clarified the sentences in question.
• A lack of distinction between Simon Larbalestier and a chap you call Oliver (a check of my copy tells me that Simon Larbalestier was the photographer and Vaughan Oliver ("Vaughan Oliver/v23" is what it says in the booklet, for some reason) the art designer and director.

Doolittle was the first album where Simon Larbalestier, the Pixies' cover artist, had access to the lyrics.

During the recording sessions, Whore was discarded as a potential album title, after album artist Oliver changed the cover artwork idea to a monkey and halo cover.

• • I've clarified that point. Fool the World talks about Larbalestier and how he came up with surrealist material - Oliver isn't mentioned much. However, they both worked on it, so I've modified the first sentence of the section.

• ...was released to radio stations for rotation. I'm not familiar with that term.
  • Replaced with "inclusion on playlists".
• After "Monkey Gone to Heaven", 4AD released "Here Comes Your Man", the second and last single to be taken directly from the album, in June 1989...It was not the last single from the album; in 1997, "Debaser" was released as a single to promote the Death to the Pixies compilation. A contradiction there, even if "Debaser" was not released till many years later.
  • The key word here is "directly". However, I'm not too happy with the phrasing myself. Could you take a look at it?

qp10qp 01:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! My comments are above. CloudNine 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The Content section mentions twice that "Dead" and "Gouge Away" have Biblical origins. This probably only needs to be said once in the section. Andrew Levine 17:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that the first para is a summary of the section, and the mention of the songs later down covers them in more detail; so, essentially, they must be mentioned twice. (Same with surrealism/"Debaser", and enviromentalism/"Monkey Gone to Heaven"). CloudNine 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object per 1a. At the end of the articles there's a table under "Charts" which violates 1a, and as this is FAC and not FLC it can be turned into prose. LuciferMorgan 04:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• You brought this exact issue up in LAMB's candidacy, and the responses (from myself and four other people) indicated that this is not a valid objection. Andrew Levine 06:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I objected per 1a Andrew, which is valid the last time I checked. LuciferMorgan 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• See also discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adore (album) and Wikipedia talk:Record charts. Essentially, everyone else has agreed that tables are appropriate for song/album articles, though the prose should also address the sales/chart performance. ShadowHalo 11:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Essentially Shadow, you mean that you have agreed to do this with Stefani related articles. Wikipedia talk:Record charts means nothing whatsoever, as my objection is based on the FA criteria - take your complaint up with the FA criteria page if you dislike my objection and ask for 1a to be more specific. Until then, I'm fully, 110% entitled to my intepretation of 1a. LuciferMorgan 01:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Of course you're entitled to your opinion. Objecting based on an interpretation of 1(a) that goes against all consensus so far is, however, inappropriate and pointy. ShadowHalo 04:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Have read half the article so far, but very good as usual, thus far. Q's:

• "in similar circumstances to "the Purple Tape". - Similar how? Similarly improvised, or similarly fracticious?
• "Francis had no preference, although Ivo Watts-Russell, head of the band's label 4AD, was keen on Norton recording the Pixies' next album" - I remember reading somewhere, but can't think where, that hiring Norton was a calculated move away from Albini's sound, and an attempt, at least on 4ADs behalf, to capitalise on the band's huge European popularity at the time. True, or am I just getting old?
• "This was a modest sum for a 1980s major label album" - 4AD are not a major label; was it financed by Elektra?
• "The master-tapes were then sent for final post-production later that month" - To which studio? Curious.
• "Norton recruited Steve Haigler as mixing engineer, whom he had worked with at Fort Apache Studios" - During which recording? Curious.
• "this record is him trying to make us, shall I say, commercial, and us trying to remain somewhat grungy" - Maybe incorporate Albini's famous openion on Pixies here.

Very good work to here, however. Ceoil 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halo 2

Didn't get a thorough consensus last time I nominated it; I addressed people's concerns, but they didn't return and pass judgement... previous FAC below. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 12:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

→previous FAC here.

• Support - looks nice, lots of work done. SamBrozden 12:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oh yeah, Support as its my nom. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 12:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Looks excellent. However, can a replacement be found for Media:Halo2cutscene_masterchief_a.jpg‎? IMO it's an exceedingly poor quality image. Qjuad 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll look. Unfortunately those all come from compressed cinematics from hbo, I had to clean it up some but the black shows most artifacts. I'll see if there's another one, unfortunately thats the only time you see the two together. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support per SamBrozden; this is a great article. Cliff smith 19:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support as good as the Halo: Combat Evolved one. igordebraga ≠ 22:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Does not have any printed citations or sources. --History Fan 00:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

And this means... what? Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dåvid Fuchs's reply was in response to History Fan's original comment, "Too many video games." There are several printed sources — for example, the game manuals, which could be considered printed, and GamePro, a magazine. S.D. 01:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment — Regardless, it's not an actionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a great article - but the subject matter is tired. Theres a huge amount of video-game articles out there. Wow, YAVGA (Yet Another Video Game Article). How about putting all that work into a subject of importance? Nice article, too bad it had to be about a video game. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 00:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can't seriously see how you can possibly justify opposing a well-written article just because its about a subject you don't find interesting... so much for 'don't be a dick'... Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to start name calling. I'm trying to give you an objective opinion of the article. It's well done, except for the subject matter (it also has no printed citations, but there's no need to get into that) The subject matter is very important. You could write the best Article in the world about pocket lint, with great formatting and lot's of pictures, and it's still just an article about pocket lint. I mean no offense. It's a great article, but so are a bazillion others about video games.Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 01:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This opposition, as with the one above, are not legitimate complaints and are therefore unactionable. Halo 2 may just be a video game, but it is an incredibly notable one. Qjuad 01:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Unactionable oppose. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I still oppose on the grounds that there is not even a single printed citation or source. It's all websites, not a single ISBN in the bunch. Websites are at best secondary sources, and at worse not to be counted as sources at all. Almost everything is from a single website (bungie.net). The dates are a mess too. A lot of dates are missing. Also, in many spots the dialogue shifts from present tense to past tense uneccessarily, and that makes it difficult to read. Plus, it's full of DEAD LINKS! Fix that stuff, and I'll change my vote. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A secondary source is not necessarily inferior. It is simply a source that is based on primary or other secondary sources. And I fail to see how the official website of the company that made the game fails to qualify as a primary source, given their closeness to the subject at hand.--Rmky87 01:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Websites are treated as sources on almost every single featured Wikipedia article. There is nothing anything inherently inferior about reliable online material compared against printed material; featured video game articles such as Half-Life 2 also have only two, maybe three printed sources. The same also goes for many featured articles in the media/computer/video game categories where the most abundant sources of information will be found online. Qjuad 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Bungie.net is the official website of the company who makes Halo 2. It is not an indenpendent source of information, so you should be careful what you reference from them. Awadewit 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using only web-sources, easiest to obtain and you can verify what is cited by looking at the source... M3tal H3ad 07:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment — issue over print citations is obsolete. Refs formatting and copy-edit are needed, however. — Deckiller 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Great article — as igordebraga said, it's as good as, if not better than, Halo: Combat Evolved. One comment: I suggest finding a source for the following line, "The game's Campaign mode has received some criticism, from the lack of Earth-based missions, to dissatisfaction with the abrupt, cliffhanger ending that sets up the sequel, Halo 3." May I remind History Fan and Sue Rangell that "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it." Cheers, S.D. 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Well-written, informative, thorough, and sourced. Please fix the citation needed tag under "Reception" though. Thanks. -Bluedog423^Talk 01:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The citation has been added. Cheers, S.D. 22:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose right now. A few things that need checked out:

• Image:Halo02.jpg looks like it should be fair use, not CC.
• Dates are needed for many of the references (for example, the GameSpot review ref should have a date parameter in the form of date=[[YEAR-MM-DD]])
• The article still has some {{fact}} tags.
• Should "superbouncing" and "superjumping" be capitalized? I don't think so...
• The "Xbox Live updates" section needs wikified and more inline citations. --- RockMFR 01:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed the new image added, and I'm in the process of adding dates when they actually give them to me. Fixed the fact thing, I swear I must have had that sourced before, it got moved or something... capitalizations has been fixed, and I'll see about adding more inline citations to that section later. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to fix — the paragraph beginning with "In June 2006, an additional online matchmaking..." is rather poorly written — I can't really even understand what it is trying to say. --- RockMFR 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fixed. Since no one outside of Halo 2 multi knows what those playlists mean, I just folded the lead sentence into the last paragraph, reworded it, and deleted the rest. Now, for those inline citations... Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The Xbox Live updates section has been improved with cleanup and more citations and links. Cheers, S.D. 22:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Contains {{fact}} tags. Mrmoocow 10:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't anymore. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose — several issues:

• References — need proper formatting. For example, the game manuals do not had ID numbers and so on. See Final Fantasy VII or Final Fantasy VIII for manual citations. Try to fill out what you can on Template:Cite web.
• Prose — needs a copy-edit. Someone mentioned tense problems above, and I see a few bulleted lists that need proper formatting or conversion to paragraph form. Other examples:

"Halo 2 features over 14 different human and alien weapons, many new to the series." — redundant word (different), "over" should be "more than", etc

"A common complaint regarding Halo 2's online play has been the widespread cheating, which began occurringstarted almost immediately after the game's release."

Captions have excessive periods.

Otherwise, it looks good. — Deckiller 21:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Support

Can you point me to the manual citing? I looked through their citations, and I can't find for the life of me where the manuals are cited. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 21:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example: (1999) in Square Electronic Arts: Final Fantasy VIII North American instruction manual (in English). Square Electronic Arts, 20, 24, 36. SLUS-00892GH. — Deckiller 21:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I filled it in for both manuals... I'll check and make sure I've got cite web format for everything (thought I did, but whatever...) Fixed your obvious suggestions, I'll do a thorough check asap. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. For references, most need author and date and perhaps publisher, and they should be all set. — Deckiller 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: After fixing references, dates, and copyediting, I suggest submitting Halo 2 to the requests for FAC and FAR for a new set of eyes to look at. Happy editing, S.D. 21:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Very weak oppose The only problem I currently see with the article is the lack of information in the Web Citations. While some of the misc. information might not be necessary, the date of publication and the author of the article should be included for context. If this problem were corrected I would change my opinion to a firm Support. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, Citation 2 should go from this:

{{cite web|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}

to this:

{{cite web|last = Gibson |first = Ellie|date = 2006-11/20|url=http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21222|publisher=Gamesindustry.biz|title=Gears of War ousts Halo|accessdate=2006-12-22}}

That will leave the output as ^ Gibson, Ellie (2006-11/20). Gears of War ousts Halo. Gamesindustry.biz. Retrieved on 2006-12-22, which is generally nicer overall. I'd fix these myself but can't access the Wayback Machine or some game sites from this computer. Cheers, Lankybugger 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (See below)

I've added the following (Citation number: What I've added):

This is all the information I found — however, I might have easily overlooked something. Hopefully this will take care of comments about formatting references/web citations. Happy editing, S.D. 21:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a little more to the few refs that S.D. missed- at this point I believe we have essentially all the info we can get on these. Some have no post dates or authors, or some (like all the bungie.net links) are screwed up due to a site redesign: while I can promise I will go back and fix each and every one of these, right now they are all 404 errors until Bungie migrates all their old stuff to the new design. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Needs copy editing ("one which the humans have been nominally losing" -- is it called the "War of Humans losing to Covenant"?) for verb tense, grammar, punctuation; lack of formal tone ("The Master Chief manages to stow away") and other fancruft style issues (When writing about a game's story elements be sure to keep a out-of-universe perspective. Or simply put, do not describe fiction as fact.), shouldn't there be "spoiler" tags for plot synposis?, most of the "Development" section should be merged with "Reception," and break Reception into popular and critical. Obviously a lot of good work though. Madcoverboy 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

not to be nitpicky with your suggestions, especially as grammar,etc is certainly valid, but a couple points: one: spoiler tags are generally not needed for a clearly labeled 'plot synopsis' section. Secondly, reception doesn't have to be broken up into more headings. After all, its roughly divided that way anyhow. I don't see why we should merge Dev with Reception, as they are two very different things. I'll check again for oou stuff. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 23:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops — I went ahead and added spoiler tags and headers; feel free to take them off for the time being. In my opinion, development doesn't need to merged since the section "takes place" until before the game was released and reception takes it from there: after the game was released. Cheers, S.D. 23:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Development doesn't need to be compressed into Reception. Development is about how the game was created and the steps the company took to hype the game before release, and reception deals with how it was received after release. Also, splitting reception into popular and criticial is basically just overemphasizing the paragraph breaks, so I don't think that's necessary, unless the WikiProject has it in their formatting guide. — Deckiller 00:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps make subsections under Development for Audio and Video (or Havok engine or...)? The section reads like a stub and isn't well integrated with the other information around it.Madcoverboy

I agree about audio; it's only one paragraph, so it can probably be integrated into Development. — Deckiller 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Since "Audio" has been expanded, the section "Development" could be renamed to something such as "Prerelease events" or just "Prerelease." Cheers, S.D. 02:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The PC computer game is scheduled for release on May 8, and though it may be common practice for Wikipedia feature ads to run in support of product releases, the featured article criteria (1e) say the content of an article is not supposed to change from day to day, as it surely will in the wake of the release and publicity. Furthermore, the article contains statements such as "Bungie has stated that the issue has been fixed ... for the Windows Vista port", for which so far as I know only the manufacturer has been permitted to form an opinion as of this time. I do not believe that the manufacturer's opinion of an upcoming product release is a neutral point of view. Mike Serfas 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • The game has been out for 2 1/2 years now. The fact that it's now being ported to another platform isn't going to change the content of the article significantly (in other words, it will not destabilize the article, as you allude). Raul654 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support with the obvious qualifier that the article will need to be updated when the PC game drops. It meets my definition of stable (in that the content itself is not going through changes) and it violates no FA requirements that I see. To quote the assessment scale... "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light" fits this article pretty well. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Update I have put in a request with the League of Copyeditors to run through this article and fix any grammatical/prose worries. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - nearly all of the bungie.net references are dead links. Most of these seem to still be accessible through archive.org. These will need to be fixed up (use the archivedate and archiveurl parameters of {{cite web}}). --- RockMFR 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I contacted bungie, and they assured me that eventually the links would be restored, within the next two weeks, s it would be painful to change them then switch them back. If they don't migrate everything by then, then I guess I'll have to trudge through it. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 01:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is heavily based on that source, my oppose will stand until the references can be verified. --- RockMFR 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• More stuff I noticed:

• "Bungie was notoriously secretive and occupied with security; large pains were taken to make sure development builds were not leaked when used for marketing purposes" — source?
• Ref #14 points to Halo: First Strike, an unreferenced article. Is this supposed to be a source?
• Am I assuming correctly that the "Characters" section is built from in-game quotes? If so, would it be possible to actually cite these quotes? Not necessary, but it would be nice.
• The bit about "I Love Bees" needs to be sourced (this should be easy) and probably could be expanded a bit, based on how much attention it got. --- RockMFR 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the sourcing, added a bit to the ilovebees (I'll format the links properly soon, i promise!) and I added a specific page citations for Halo: First Strike as its in poor shape. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Queen Consort of George VI of the United Kingdom; Mother to Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Support Self-nominated There were some problems with POV raised at Peer review, but I hope that these are now resolved. DrKiernan 09:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- the work done by DrK has surely brought it up to FA status. Astrotrain 09:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Wow...I don't think I could be more impressed. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 00:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Support- Factually accurate,well researched,well presented.An example of what a FA should be. Lemon martini 14:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, well written. However, after a quick scan I'd of like to have read mention of the following from Woodrow Wyatt's diaries and other sources about Bowes-Lyon's views of the commonwealth, and African efforts to end apartheid [7]. Which is one of the few things that sticks in my mind when I think of her as a person. Of note is ....

• that she supported apartheid era President PW Botha of South Africa.
  • Or, that she supported the few liberal policies introduced by Botha: interracial marriage – which had been banned – was legalised; the constitutional prohibition on multiracial political parties was lifted; the Group Areas Act, which barred non-whites from living in certain areas, was relaxed; constitutional reforms granted limited political rights to "Coloureds" (South Africans of mixed white and non-white ancestry) and Indians; and he was the first South African government leader to authorise contacts with imprisoned ANC leader Nelson Mandela. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she often drank a toast at the end of dinner to Margaret Thatcher who opposed sanctions against South Africa.
  • It is also said the Queen and Thatcher didn't like one another, so would be unlikely to drink a toast to her. Mrs. ThatcherAndrew Neil once said to Brian Walden and Woodrow Wyatt, whilst they were discussing the animosity between the Queen and Mrs. Thatcher: "The problem is, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP." Wyatt's comments should be judged with the knowledge that Wyatt was a supporter of Thatcher himself, and that the Queen Mother might say something complimentary to charm Wyatt, and Wyatt might have read too much into it. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• that she scolded black Commonwealth countries which had been pressing for sanctions.

**Perhaps because she felt that by imposing sanctions the worst hit economically would be the black African population? (I'm not defending that position, I'm just saying that others held it) DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC) I can find no evidence in Wyatt that she scolded any Commonwealth countries for demanding sanctions. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• that she described Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia as "an idiot" for demanding sanctions.
  • She may well have described him as an idiot, but not necessarily for demanding sanctions. It could have been for the far more mundane reason that, when dining with the Queen and much to the Royal Family's amusement, Kuanda drank from his finger bowl. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If this has already been discussed then forgive me. If not, then perhaps it should be.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Given that all these comments either jar with other recorded comments made by her (such as "I love communists") or can be taken two ways, I think it best to avoid them. DrKiernan 08:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Also she had no role in politics, so any views that she may have aired are of no real relevance. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The exclusion of these points shouldn't bar the article from reaching featured status, as DrKiernan is correct to note that they are debatable. However, Be warned that the exclusion of various verifiable details on the basis that perhaps she meant something else - or that they could be judged in a certain light by us - is problematic. If I've spotted possible ommisions at first glance, then be sure that others will in the future. It may be worth pre-empting that by adding a sentence or so briefly covering these points in an NPOV way, rather than seeing some POV hack coming along and making a mess of it after it reaches featured status. In response to Astrotrain, all major British royals have a role in politics whether they like it or not, and their political views are of notable interest to articles.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Good article, very readable. As far as POV language goes, I found only one pressing sample: "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity." The only other problem I have is with the image QM Arms.png, which is of too poor quality for a FA. Tweak the wording of that one sentence and find a larger/higher resolution image, and I'll gladly support this as a FA. Caknuck 01:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a better quality image of her arms- unfortunatly it was deleted when the coat of arms pages were all deleted by that stupid Orphanbot. Astrotrain 10:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Support Oppose POV issues and other problems.

• "Her ceaseless smile, endurance and longevity gave a consistent impression of stable continuity."
  • Sentence removed. DrKiernan 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “During the war, her seemingly indomitable spirit provided moral support to the British public,” - that’s an opinion/perception stated as fact. It needs to be stated in terms of an opinion popularly put forward rather than “the truth” .
• ”Although the King was initially reluctant to support Churchill, in due course both the King and Queen came to respect and admire him for his courage and solidarity.” => for what they perceived to be his courage and solidarity.
  • This sentence is supported by two sources, neither of whom feel it necessary to qualify this characterisation of Churchill. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Her birthdays became times of celebration” – for who?
  • Phrase removed. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “she helped to stabilise the popularity of the monarchy as a whole.” Needs elaboration and clarification. How did she help stabilise public opinion? And is there any tangible evidence other than the opinion of Lawrence Goldman in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography?
  • Reworded as "regarded as…help[ing] to stabilize the popularity of the monarchy…". DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• “Despite her reputation as holding conservative family values (after the U.S. President Jimmy Carter kissed her on the lips, she said "No man has done that since my husband died."[72]), she held liberal views on homosexuality.” I don’t think the US style political dichotomy “liberal – conservative” is appropriate here. What are “conservative family values” and how do her comments about Jimmy Carter relate? The evidence provided re:homosexuality proves that she was tolerant of homosexuals, not that she “held liberal views on homosexuality”.
  • I'm not sure tolerant is right either. She was more than tolerant - she was supportive of her homosexual staff when it was suggested they be dismissed. Perhaps we can use gays in the military as a comparison - the "conservative" view is "sack gays", the "liberal" view is "gays should have the same employment rights", the "tolerant" view might be Clinton's compromise: "gays should keep their sexuality a secret". On this scale she might be "liberal". I've rewritten the section, so as to avoid using these labels. DrKiernan 16:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
• You have included the criticisms from unreliable American hack, Kitty Kelly, yet as of now there is still no inclusion of the verifiable analysis I have provided above by Francis Wheen, a prominent British journalist.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 20:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • But Wheen is a left-wing writer with an obvious political motive, which does not apply to the biographers¹ used as main sources. There are already about twice as many citations to left-wing newspapers as to right-wing ones in the article (which is understandable - it accords with my own reading preferences). I am not personally convinced that the current balance between sycophantic hagiographers and their socialist opposers is weighted one way or another. Nevertheless, I may gain access to a copy of Wyatt's journal on Wednesday evening, and I would like to assess that before considering whether to make the edits you've suggested in your comments above. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

¹I do not include Kelley in the term "biographers", but I think it would prove problematic to remove that material. I imagine other editors would wish to re-insert it. DrKiernan 14:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, DrKiernan. I still worry about the "ceaseless smile.." and the "admire Churchill for his courage.." lines, the first just doesn't read like an encyclopaedic entry. As her smile obviously wasn't ceaseless, it reads as more of a platitude or a Daily Mail caption. The second needs to be phrased in a way emphasising that Churchill's "courage and solidarity" was in the eyes of the subjects. Regarding the Guardian piece, I don't particularly like articles that use random criticism from journalists, and I personally can't stand Wheen but I still feel that his piece represents a notable perception, one that I was well aware myself. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, after that accusation I can either claim that the Daily Mail is clearly an underused source of superlative quality, or change the sentence. I've changed the sentence. DrKiernan 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've decided I'm not at all impressed by Wheen's reading of Wyatt's diary. The actual conversation on South Africa reads,
[Queen Mother]: How disgraceful it is that the press is trying to involve the Queen in the row about sanctions and whether some states might leave the Commonwealth.
[Wyatt]: Is there any truth in the story that she [the Queen]'s at odds with Mrs. Thatcher?
[Queen Mother]: None whatever (vol. I p. 167)
So, she does not say that she is against sanctions. What she actually says is that she is against the Queen becoming involved in politics. The passage "She thinks it is awful how the BBC and media misrepresent everything that Botha is trying to do." (vol. I p. 101) is accurately reported by Wheen, but as I said before that could be in relation to his few liberal policies. These are the only mentions of her in relation to South Africa in the entire 3 volumes. In fact, on reading the journal, it is Wyatt who is revealed to be a right-wing racist, not her. When he rubbishes the blacks by saying that they are not like us, her contribution is, "I am very keen on the Commonwealth. They're all like us." (vol. II p. 547) I'm more than ever convinced that Wheen's comments are unrepresentative and bias, and should not go in the article. DrKiernan 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello DrKiernan. Thanks for getting hold of the diaries. I'll bow to your better judgment on this and put it down to a typical Wheen slur, of which he has become increasingly associated with. I thought about the Churchill sentence, it still reads as though his "courage and solidarity" is a given. I'm not sure the Kurds would agree; "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes" etc.[8]-- Zleitzen^(talk) 16:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello! In my reply to your request for qualification of Churchill's character I very nearly wrote a second sentence along the lines of: "Indeed, I could claim that 'courage and solidarity' could easily read 'bravery to the point of foolhardiness, and bloody-minded obstinacy', and still be an accurate representation of his character." But then I thought better of it and decided to be polite. Anyway, this is a long way to say, I shall add your suggested qualification. DrKiernan 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Coast Mariners FC

I believe this article meets the featured article criteria. A "good article" since November 28, it follows the club pages manual of style and is fully referenced.

As a note, it had a peer review at the end of November, which mainly focused on structural issues at the time.

In my opinion, one of the best parts about this page is the images, which are generally so lacking in most sports articles. A lot of time and effort has gone in to securing free images from the club and photographers, all of which have permission archived in the OTRS system.

Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

---

• Ref #33 is missing.--Rmky87 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Indeed it is - it somehow got lost. Restored from history, so Done. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 06:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Support. Very good overall. Excellent prose I must say. Throughout comments:

• Image:Dean Heffernan2.jpg has a watermark, which is generally disallowed in Wikipedia images.

  Done, with the removal of Heffernan from the section which the image was in, the image went also.

• Image:Central Coast FC.gif doesn't have a fair use rationale.

  Done

• "The Marinators also have a Mariners fans forum and web site." - 1) "web site" > "website". 2) Rather trivial information, anything it's notable for?

  Done; not really, no - it is, in effect, unreferenced, so I've removed it.

• Separate the notes section from the references, seeing as the first note contains improperly formatted references. It might also be confusing for the readers.

  May I ask, how? Use {{note}}? I wasn't sure how to do this.

  Yes. Take a look here. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 18:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Looks much better, thanks. Daniel Bryant 08:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Lacks references for achievements, records, and personnel.

  Doing.

  Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done for Notable players; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Socceroos" > "Australia national football team players". ...coping financially.[19] but after forming > No need in a punctuation here, move the reference to the end of the sentence. "They participate in the A-League, and are one > Remove the comma. ...local businessman John Singleton the clubs financial worries were eased - Add a comma after "John Singleton". The Mariners have been able to secure > The Mariners secured. Michaelas10^{Respect my authoritah} 20:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks very much for raising those (I've converted your comment into dot-points for ease of use, I hope you don't mind). Any advice on what to use for the ref/note split would be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Oppose I must have missed the peer review for this one. A few (mostly minor) things before this can get my support:

• Why is Hefferman listed as a star player?

  Done. I don't know, exactly :) I originally thought when it was added he was a Socceroo squad member, but on further checking he isn't. Removed (with the picture, see above).

• A rivalry with Newcastle United Jets is mentioned in the lead, but is not included anywhere in the body of the article.

  Should I create a separate section for rivalry, or include it in one of the existing ones? I can't see which existing one I could put it in, but on the flip side, The Mariners are only two years, and SFC and NUJ are the only rivals (ie. "F3 derby" and "NSW Cup").

  Done, moved to History section. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The use of tenses is mixed in places (I might fix this one myself in the next day or two)

  I would be very greatful if you could - I am hopeless with stuff like that :)

  Done, I believe. Oldelpaso edited this to make some minor copy-editing changes; I presume this was to fix these tense problems. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Colours and crest section is a little thin. The second paragraph is a description of away form, which is not connected to the kit itself. The use of "clean sheet" in this context seems odd. Don't know if its different in Aus. Eng., but in Br. Eng. the term is nearly always used when talking about the defending team. Either way, "failed to score" is easier for a non-sports fan to understand.

  Done for the wording. There isn't all that much information on the strip, hence your concern. The most notable part about it is actually the 05-06 away form with the strip, hence why it's there. I'll look around for a little bit more info regarding the colours/badge.

  Haven't been able to find much else, sadly. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why is the Central Coast Leagues Club "the home of the Mariners"? Oldelpaso 22:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, removed. It is, really. Directly across from Bluetongue, all post-match stuff occurs there. However, because I recognise that it is really a POV, as such - the CCM offices are at Wyong - and because the reference doesn't point to that info, I've removed it. Thanks for all these suggestions, and I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer some suggestions regarding the comments I made above. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 06:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

  Nearly there now. My one concern is that some of the prose in the history section isn't cleanly presented. "Media speculation prior to announcement of the franchises in the new league suggested that the Mariners bid may be favourable due to its new blood, and backing from former Australian national team player and club technical director Alex Tobin, as well as Clean Up Australia personality Ian Kiernan, who would act as club chairman" is the biggest example of this, and should be two or three sentences rather than one. Oldelpaso 20:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  That particular sentence is Done; however, I'm trying to arrange a copyedit for the full section from an unrelated person. Thanks for that. Daniel Bryant 08:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

---

A good article from a fantastic editor! Believe me, nobody, more than myself would like to see a Central Coast article featured, however their are a few things I believe need to be fixed up.

• The lead mentions a rivalry with the Newcastle Jets, yet their is no further detail in the prose. If their is more to add then it should go into the history. If not, that paragraph should be move to the history.

  This issue is mentioned above. I'm actively considering doing as you mention and moving it to the history section (with an appropriate rephrasing), which should solve the problem. The only trouble is, will this make the lead too short?

  Done exactly what you said, see above. Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• The notable players section lists five players and in its current format shows a POV. I believe this section should detail why and what these players are notable for. The references in this section are also all for either the CCM website or the ALeague website. If these players are indeed notable, then shouldn't they be mentioned in a reliable external source. I personally find it hard to believe that a 2 year old club has had so many notable players.

  I have reworded this section so it clearly states the bar of inclusion in that list is playing international football. This list includes 5 players (: 4; : 1). I will try and find a couple of references, probably at the same time I add a little bit of content outlining that players' international (notable) career in <two sentences :)

  Done for notable players/personnel; also note the expansion of text is in this section. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• One thing that this article is definately good for is references. However they are in the wrong places. Achievements and Records should have at least a refernece each, and they should be from an external source. In addition, does the Achievements section need to be completely bolded.

  As noted above, I'm in the process of doing the further referencing. Regarding the bolding of achievements, I'm not exactly sure what you mean (note: MOS). I'd appreciate some further clarification on that point.

  Done for Achievements. 05:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done for Records during the convert-to-prose. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article, yet more to do. In the meantime Oppose. SUPPORT.^[9]Todd661

Thanks for the input. I'll try and clean everything up over the next couple of days. Daniel Bryant 10:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Conditional^[10] Support. Good article, but a few things:

• "The Mariners have a strong rivalry with Newcastle Jets, often referred to as the "F3 derby".[6]" May be a bit biased, but I can't believe that a two-year old derby is that "strong". I'd recommend that the Newcastle Jets rivalry information be included in the fans section, by the way.

  Done, moved from lead.

• "The Central Coast Mariners' bid for the Football Federation Australia's (FFA) new A-League aimed to fill the space for one regional team in the competition.[8]" I don't understand that at all. I presume it means that the Mariners looked to fill the franchise spot designated for a certain area. But that's not clear from that sentence and needs rephrasing.

  Indeed, it isn't the best wording. Will sleep on it.

  Done, I think that should read better. Daniel Bryant 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Prior to the 2006-07 season, the Mariners secured the services of then Australian international Tony Vidmar from NAC Breda for two years.[31] This was the Mariners' first marquee signing, following the lead of Sydney FC (Dwight Yorke) and Adelaide United (Qu Shengqing).[32]" What defines a "marquee player" sounds like a bit of arbitary description to me.

  A marquee player is one whose salary falls outside the salary cap. Each club can have one designated marquee player. This is explained in references like [11] (probably the best for an article reference), [12], [13], [14] and [15]. I appreciate the concern, and will continue searching for the perfect reference to add to the article to clear up this issue. By the way, I've looked into it, and can link "marquee player" to two places: Salary cap#A-League or A-League#Clubs. Each is unreferenced, but I'll fix that :)

  I think if you just wiki-link "marquee player" to Salary cap#A-League that'll be fine. Cheers, HornetMike 17:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done, too easy :) Daniel Bryant 02:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• ""We all follow a yellow football team" (as the Mariners wear a primarily yellow strip when playing at home)." That can be cut down to "(a reference to the colour of the team's kit)" HornetMike 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for that, and all the other, suggestion. I would love a response regarding the marquee player, though. Cheers, and thanks again, Daniel Bryant 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Hey, been offline a while so missed an opportunity perhaps, but overall this is a great article. I have only a few very minor comments which you can look at as you see fit.

• The use of WP:DASH, e.g. the en-dash, for seasons such as 2003-04 ought to be 2003–04.

  Done. Ah, yes, the dashes. Thanks for that.

• Highest attendance - against whom, was it a significant match, when was it?

  Done, added details; they were in the records anyways, but can't hurt to add it there as well.

• "..only one football manager.." - it's a clear football article so I'd ditch "football".

  Done

• Records section, this would be nicer in prose rather than a simple list. See Arsenal F.C. for a good guide on what I'm looking for.

  Will do; I like Arsenal's much better than the present CCM one. Added to to-do list.

  Done, I've converted the recors to prose. I estimate that the Records section is currently at 80% completion; I still want to add a paragraph about how they hold the A-League record for longest undefeated streak at home (nearly 12 months), which recieved a lot of media attention. Shouldn't be too hard, I'll do it in a couple of hours' time. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  Done fully, see below. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Refs 1, 11 & 44 are in the wrong place if you follow WP:CITE strictly. And the citations in the notes section.

  Done for 1 (and 2), and 44. 11 I can't seem to see anything wrong with. I've also fixed the notes section.

  Yes, ref 11 is fine, don't know what I was talking about. The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• In the supporters section there feels to me like an overuse of parentheses, it detracts from the excellent prose.

  Done, fixed.

Hopefully some of that makes sense and/or helps. Great work, all the best. The Rambling Man 19:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it helped lots, thanks so much. I'll get to work regarding the Records, and if you could have a look at Ref 11 for me, that'd be great. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you've rewritten the records section and I'll add my support The Rambling Man 08:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you a ping when I've done the last 20%, per above. 05:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, I had to scrap the last 20% because I was mistaken...thank goodness for WP:V :) Notified as per request. Daniel Bryant 10:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, so now, as promised, I offer you strong support. The Rambling Man 10:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks for all your suggestions (and help, with the en dashes - I still hate swapping them over, despite all the practice I'm getting :D), Daniel Bryant 10:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Support. Great article. Only one comment. Would it be possible to write something about the clubs ownership. Thanks. Kyriakos 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Regarding the ownership, I believe that this has been covered in the History section. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Boy Scouting (Boy Scouts of America)

I was REALLY blown away by the quality of this article. I believe it easily qualifies for featured article status. I know there are some out there who be negative-nellies about virtually anything, but I defy even the most resolute doubter to find fault with this piece. IT IS REALLY REALLY GOOD. - Sue Rangell 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Weak Support'Strong SupportNeutral I'm an Eagle Scout and thus want to support this article. But there are few MINOR things I'd like to see improved. 1) The intro needs to be expanded. 2) More citations in the Emblem section. 3) I didn't like the section with the law/motto/etc. They are absolutely necessary, but I didn't like how they were presented. They weren't aesthetically pleasing/introduced.Balloonman 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

addressed 1 and 2, will work on 3 later.Rlevse 12:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

done with 3, good input.Rlevse 22:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

With the changes that you made based upon the comments on my talk page, I am changing my vote to strong support.Balloonman 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing vote to neutral per concerns about sources only coming from BSA... I don't believe that it is necassary to include the controversy of gay/athiest, but the sources should be...Balloonman 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Sources are not only from BSA, in fact, most aren't.Rlevse 09:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Needs more citations from printed sources--History Fan 00:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Not an actionable objection. There is no requirement that sources be printed.Sumoeagle179 10:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• I see, don't like anyone to disagree, so just say their opinion is not valid. Good articles should draw on many source including printed. I guess not everyone can contribute to wiki then.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Historyfan07 (talk • contribs).
  • Stop being so sensitive. You made an objection based on something not required; sources are required but being in hardcopy is not required. The article has several different sources, AT LEAST THREE (footnotes 4, 13, and 14), ARE HARDCOPY REFS, so your objection is even less valid. Several other footnotes, at least 3, 11, 12, and 16; are available in both web and hardcopy versions and the refs in total come from at least 10 different entities.Sumoeagle179 15:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. The changes made by Rlevse per Balloonman's suggestions, esp the boxes on the side, are really nice. Very nice article.Sumoeagle179 02:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong support. though note I was a minor contributor. Gadget850's recent additions were excellent.Rlevse 15:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments Thanks Randy- I really like the boxes for the Oath and Law- obviously we need to replicate that in the other articles. Life has been busy, but I found some time to get back to this. One big issue is the article name: Per the Language of Scouting, it probably should be Boy Scouting, not Boy Scouts. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You're probably right about the name. Not sure if we should change it in the middle of the FAC though, but I guess it'd be okay.Rlevse 10:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
    • RENAMED here, talk page, article itself, and archives per talk here and on talk page.Rlevse 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Support. It just occurred to me that I never officially said that I support the page. (Even though it's obvious because I nominated it) So it's missing my contribution of bold letters. The recent upgrades are great, taking an already great page and making it REALLY super. I am proud to promote, nominate, and strongly support this page. I don't even want to guess at how many hours of work went into it, I hope all the contributers get barnstars. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 17:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. In printed sources 13 and 14 I see no page numbers.--Yannismarou 09:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not going to bother to lodge an oppose on an article that obviously isn't ready yet, because the regular editors should know this article is nowhere near FA-worthy. As but one small example, can someone explain why Scout Motto isn't wiki linked ? If regular scouting editors allow this article to be promoted in this shape, I'm surprised.  :-) Sue Rangell also nominated Sonoma County, California for FAC, about here. If regular scouting editors want respect for their articles, I suggest they clean up this article, or oppose the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• fixed the links. if you have additional issues, please be specific, I can't read your mind, what is obvious to you may not be obvious to us.Rlevse 01:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article needs more reliable sources and is far from comprehensive. The fact that it does not address the controversy of gay and atheist members at all but leaves that to an internal wikilink is astonishingly POV. Awadewit 23:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment that is an issue for the Boy Scouts of America article, which does discuss it and links to the FA on Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, which was already in this article's See also section. This article is on the program not the association, please don't confuse the two.Rlevse 01:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply The lead begins Boy Scouting is one of the traditional membership divisions of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA), part of the worldwide Scout movement. Available to boys ages ten through seventeen, it provides a program for community organizations that, along with Cub Scouting and Venturing, offers effective character, citizenship, and mental and personal fitness training for youth. - Because "boy scouting" is directly linked to the BSA this information must be included. Moreover, the page claims that "boy scouting . . . [is] [a]vailable to boys ages ten through seventeen." But, of course, if those boys are atheists or gay, then "boy scouting" is not available to them. This must be made clear. A link in the "See also" section is not enough. Awadewit 01:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's just shoehorn it into this and the other membership articles. We will worry about keeping it synchronized later since it is going to creep all over the place. Given the edit history in the main BSA article, no one is reading the comment embedded in the section, so we will have to patrol it aggressively. We obviously need to reword the lead-in since "available" doesn't mean what I thought it meant. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 02:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that almost every source for this page is published by the BSA or Boy Scouts themselves. One would like to see some independent sources here to verify what the Boy Scouts are claiming about themselves. There are also scholarly works on the Boy Scouts. Why those are not cited here, I am not quite sure since wikipedia encourages the use of such sources whenever possible WP:ATT, WP:CITE, and WP:RS. Awadewit 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Only about half the references are from BSA sites or manuals. The U.S. Scouting Service Project is used for several references (and I can see where they have more)– it is not formally associated with the BSA. If you have any further references that pertain specifically to the Boy Scouting division, please let me know. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 17:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. Using references from associations themselves to prove information about those very associations has to be done extremely carefully. The Boy Scouts have an interest in representing themselves in a particular way in their literature as does the USSSP. Here are some books that I found in a quick search. There are obviously more books and articles available. Some of these books would allow the editors to historicize and contextualize boy scouting more. It has not always been the same and it arose out of a particular historical context.

• Jay Mechling, On My Honor: Boy Scouts and the Making of American Youth, University of Chicago Press (2001)
• M. Rosenthal, The Character Factory: Baden-Powell and the Origins of the Boy Scout Movement, Pantheon Books (1986)

This one is used in Robert Baden-Powell, 1st Baron Baden-Powell- it is specifically a biography of B-P and history of The Scout Association.

• R. H. MacDonald, Sons of the Empire: The Frontier and the Boy Scout Movement, 1890-1918, University of Toronto Press (1993)

Again, more oriented towards UK Scouting history.

• Timothy Parsons, Race, resistance, and the Boy Scout movement in British Colonial Africa, Ohio University Press Awadewit 17:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, reviews of On My honor' made this one look like it belongs more in Boy Scouts of America membership controversies, but it might just be worth a look. The last three are really about the history of UK Scouting. These last really are not relevant to the BSA Boy Scouting troop program, except as a historical reference of another national program. Some like material is in History of the Boy Scouts of America, another part of the BSA series. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

On My Honor, from its table of contents, is clearly about more than just the controversy. Also, my point here is that there are reliable published works about scouting by scholars. If these books are not helpful, their bibliographies might lead you to more relevant material. Moreover, I found these sources in just five minutes of searching on google scholar. Imagine what a sustained search amongst various research tools by the editors of this article would elicit. Awadewit 22:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC),

[edit] 1998 Pacific hurricane season

I did this one not too long ago, and I think it's featured quality. I've been wrong before, however, and I'd love to hear your opinions. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment, can an ACE table chart please be included, before anything else happens? Other than that, I have no problems with the article. Thanks. RaNdOm26 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I don't know how I forgot about that. OK, I added it in. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• *Jumps up and down to see if anyone is watching this* Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • *Joins with Tito in hope that someone else will comment on it* Hurricanehink (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - In the intro it says Hurricane Lester and Tropical Storm Frank were also deadly which I presume means they caused fatalities. If so why is Hurricane Madeline not mentioned if it caused 31 people to die; were they indirect deaths due to the flooding? For that matter do indirect deaths contribute to a hurricanes fatality rating? Could probably also do with a light copy edit (I fixed one typo in the intro). Thanks. CheekyMonkey 18:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• I hadn't really thought of including Madeline in the lede, as the deaths were indirect, but I suppose it warrants inclusion. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BackupHDDVD

Self-nomination Currently GA. Covers the subject exhaustively if not completely, for that reason I think the unusually short length can be excused. Has plenty of references and has been stable for a while now. Noclip 04:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for several reasons:
  • I personally don't believe the prose is very fluid or captivating. The FA admin can take this as they will, it's just my personal opinion after reading through the article.
    • Can you clarify this? Examples?
  • Some hail it as a victory for consumers' fair use rights, while others are expressing concerns that it will be used for piracy. This is an example of...er...I can't really remember the term, but you claim that some people do something while others do something else without really providing any sources.
    • Done
  • The referencing doesn't make very much sense to me. Almost half of all notes are references to some website's forum, one is a broken link [16] [17], and none of them follow the proper formatting for citation.
    • The YouTube reference is meant to demonstrate that it was taken down.
  • The section heading "AACS cracked?" seems like the title of an opinion editorial.
    • Done
  • When the release of the tool was publicized, several articles incorrectly claimed that AACS had been "cracked." Which articles? This is just another example of a number of claims made in this articles that are not backed up.
    • Done Examples added.
  • This link will not always report the article in its "latest news" section.
    • Looking for a mirror, but archive.org seems to be lagging a year behind.
  • So my best suggestion to you would be to consult other FAs and try to bring it up to the standard of those while finding more reputable sources to back up the stuff that's written in the article. Then take what you've written and subject it to a heavy copyedit to get things flowing correctly. Then get over to peer review and see what they can do to help. Hope this helps, JHMM13 06:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • • Thanks for responding to my suggestions. I'm sorry about linking the YouTube link. As you can see by the wording, I only meant to include one after remembering that the link references something within the article. I would like to continue working with you to help improve this article, but I'm afraid I don't have time to do it at the moment. For this reason I don't think it is fair for me to oppose this article because I can't match the effort you put into it and I'm changing my input to neutral. Thanks again and I appreciate the hard work you've put into the article. JHMM13 05:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

• "free, open source utility" may not necessarily be released as public domain. Could you check on the licence?
  • The SourceForge page (before it was removed) listed it as PD.
• presumably for the purpose -- presumably?
  • Presumed by the author. It could be used in a wide variety of ways, but the use it was created for was backup.
• Too many short paragraphs. Could be merged into a larger section
  • Done
• There's just one line to its working. This needs to be expanded.
  • Done

=Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I like it! It's a pleasure to read and very informative. While not PERFECT, certainly better than other artcles that have recieved FA status. Sue Rangell^{[citation needed]} 02:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• The last statement of the previous reviewer appears to be irrelevant to the criteria. Oppose because the prose is awkward and faulty throughout. Here are just a few examples.
  • "does not violate the Digital Millenium Copyright Act nor ..." No, "neither ... nor", otherwise don't use "nor".
  • "to successfully decrypt a disc's contents" - ungainly on a number of counts.
  • "a task with which neither BackupHDDVD nor its author provide any assistance" - "With"?
    • This is a perfectly valid way of expressing "a task which neither BackupHDDVD nor its author provide any assistance with."
  • "For several weeks after the utility's release no claims of having been able to successfully use the author's key extraction technique were made" - Avoid possessive apostrophe for unconscious items. Comma almost compulsory after "release". It's another ungainly sentence.
  • "However, in mid-January, a key was published and several others quickly discovered a method" - Several other what? Tony 08:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Done Addressed general concern of awkward prose, fixed specific examples. Noclip 18:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battleship

Self-nomination. A group of editors, myself included, have worked this article into a thorough, precise and informative account of one of the most important weapons of all time. The article has recently passed a thorough A-class review from WP:MILHIST, as well as detailed feedback from its Good Article nomination. It is a fairly long article with a prose length of 67k, but I think this is justifiable given that it covers hundreds of years of history and every major seafaring nation. The Land 08:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Overwhelming ToC -- needs to be compacted

• I've taken this on board and removed 14 subheaders.The Land 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Pro western biased, modern-day biased -- battleships of the ancient world ignored/not mentioned
2. 67k not justified. Has immense scope for precis writing
   • The article has already been split twice during the recent development, with a great deal of material moved to ship of the line and ironclad warship. The most recent discussion about further splitting was at the A-class review: you will see there is no consensus to further split the article (there is also no consensus to split aircraft carrier, an article where the same sort of considerations apply). Many sections are already precis. 67k is long, but the scope of the article justifies it. The Land 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
     • With further trimming the prose size comes down to 61k. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
3. USA --> United States
   • Could you explain that? The Land 11:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
4. Parts of a battleship?
   • Most other articles about types of ship don't go into details about their naval architecture. I think the article covers the important bits of battleship in the discussion of their development and I'm concerned that a 'parts of the battleship' section might be duplicative or, given the changes over time, confusing. The Land 11:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
5. Types of battleships?
6. The Falklands War, a major recent war seems to be missed
7. ancient and modern day naval powers missing
8. Why are the Iowa class ships given so much prominence?
9. Battleship strategies (subs vs aircraft carriers vs battleship) hardly mentioned.

=Nichalp «Talk»= 09:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The Oxford English Dictionary says the word 'battleship' derives from 1794. What battleships of the ancient world are you thinking of? Furthermore, the use of battleships by Japan, Turkey and Russia is well covered and the A-class reviewers commented positively on the global outlook of the article.
• Types of battleship: the article goes into some detail about the evolution of battleships: pre-Dreadnought, Dreadnought, more modern types. We have covered most sub-descriptions of 'battleship', of which there are not many. What in particular do you mean?
• No battleships were involved in the Falklands War.
• I believe the article mentions every nation which has owned a battleship. Which do you think are missing?
• Iowa class ships were the only type of battleship in use for roughly 50 years. This inevitably means that they will crop up a fair amount.
• There is a section on strategy, and a continuous theme of the article is the tension between battleships and submarines and aircraft. Please be more specific. The Land 09:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Battleships are very large, heavily-armored warships with a main battery consisting of the largest caliber of guns. -- can this definition not be applied to the Turtle ships? which had cannons, were heavily amoured, and supposedly iron-clad?

• It would be OR to describe them as 'battleships'. This article is about ships which have been classified or described as battleships. Turtle ships never have been. The lead section does not describe every attribute of battleships - nor should it try to - but turtle ships are a) totally unrelated to battleships in terms of their evolution and b) markedly different in terms of their attributes, lacking iron/steel construction, engines, propellors. They have no place whatsoever in this article. Their place has extensively been discussed at Talk:Ironclad warship where there is currently something like a consensus. The Land 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• This opening definition is indeed misleading. Pre-dreadnought battleships were NOT larger than ocean cruisers of that time. Dreadnoughts were smaller than battlecruisers (within the same generation). BTW, the "15000-17000 tons" for pre-dreadnoughts needs more specification. Standard displacement of typical 1st class Brit is less than 15000 (Canopus 13200, Majestic 14600 etc). NVO 23:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first sentence will necessarily be an abstraction. The first sentence claims battleships were 'very large' not 'the largest', and while one can find exceptions it is true to a first approximation. However, I take on board your point and will clear that up in the pre-Dreadnought section. The 15,000 to 17,000 figure is Stoll's and not mine - sadly he doesn't make it clear that it is laden displacement, though Sondhaus accords with your figures. Not sure what to do about that. The Land 17:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• How would one differentiate a battleship from a cruiser/destroyer and other types of warships? Needs to be mentioned. For example this suggests that the INS '"Rajput is a battleship, but then again the WP article INS Rajput (D51) mentions it as a destroyer

=Nichalp «Talk»= 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Rajput is not a battleship because she lacks armour or large gun armament. I am not sure there is a better way of putting it. The distinction between battleship and cruiser/destroyer on this basis is very clear at any point in time. The Land 11:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

INS Rajput is clearly a guided missile destroyer. I think the problem here is a confusion with the terminology. Instead of 'warship', 'battleship' has been used. This was explained quite good in the trivia section that was removed earlier. Especially how media sometimes confuses terminology and how some sci-fi series has added to this confusion by claiming all ships being 'battleships'.--MoRsE 11:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Further comment

• Length: this can be summarised further: eg:The first example of the power of naval aviation was the British air attack on the Italian naval base at Taranto that took place on the night of November 11 — November 12, 1940. The Royal Navy launched the first all-aircraft naval attack in history, flying a small number of aircraft from an aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea and attacking the Italian fleet at Taranto. -- nothing to do with the core topic

Changed that and did some other trimming. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Wikify years - 24 May 1941

  I think wikifying all years might just result in link clutter. How about I dewikify those years which are currently linked? The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Only if the month and day is given See WP:DATE =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unlink low value blue links: ram, war etc

  Done and done. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Replace hyphens by the dash (&ndash;) where applicable

  Done - might have missed one or two, will check later. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Use a non-breaking space between a number and unit (&nbsp;) 10 in
• Metric equivalents needed

With regards to units and metric equivalents, I am working on this but where a measurement repeats in a section might only give the full unit and equivalent measure the first time a value occurs. Where "12 in gun" occurs ever sentence, expanding it to "12 inch (305 millimetre gun" as MoS suggests woudl very much hinder readability! The Land 17:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the first instance was what I was looking for. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• =Battleships in strategy and doctrine= -- no citations

There are now. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The USMC?

• US Marine Corps - clarified thanks The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• USA --> United States; U.S. --> US: see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations

• I have changed the one reference to US to U.S.. The MoS says that USA and USN are perfectly valid acronyms. The Land 16:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Not if it is mentioned with a list of countries. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  You might have said that the first time. I have changed the three instances when we has used USA in a list. The Land 19:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• 2nd level sections needs to go. 4.2.x. 8.1 is also bad style.

• Got rid of 8.1 but I think sub-sub-heads are necessary for section 4 to flow. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  That can be solved by summarising the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• =Dreadnoughts in the rest of the world= -- rest of the world is POV suggest it be changed to "...other countries"

Done. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why is dreadnought in bold? so too Italy, Argentina and Chile?

Dreadnought in bold where? Re the countries: I have just deleted section headings for most of these countries, which served to emphasise them, so I wanted another way to emphasise them. While italics are normal for emphasis this article has a lot of ship names, which are all italicised. Using italics to emphasise the country names would run the risk of confusing people who assume the countries are ships. The Land 16:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see any reason why they should be emphasised. MOS:BOLD does not mention the need for having bold text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  Changed, no point arguing over it. The Land 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• =Dreadnoughts in the rest of the world= Spain, Brazil, Turkey... did any of these countries' battleships go into active service?

  Yes. The Land 19:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Camden, N.J, Norfolk, Va. --> full name needed
• =The crucial Pacific battles= -- remove "the crucial"

Done The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Re to Turtle ships: Turtle ships are not battleships, but the history section needs to mention how similar ships (by defination) were in existence. Just like Columbus 'discovered' America, it does not mean that America was uninhabited or undiscovered by humans at that time.

I strongly disagree. There are no sources to suggest the turtle ship is anything to do with the battleship. To say it is is original research. The Land 16:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weasel terms: A far-sighted yet combative man, it is often held -- according to who?

Am sure a source could be found but it's somewhat off-topic so I've snipped it... didn't like that paragraph anyway tbh. The Land 16:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

More review later. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

A comment

• Maybe the intro could explicitly state that a battleship is not any ship used for battle. Zocky | picture popups 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I support this with qualification:

its a staggeringly large topic and I am not sure that ship of the line shouldn't be a very short paragraph with the link to a expanded article as it is now. The ships of the line gave nothing but the concept of a large battleline to be transfered over to a battleship.

Inline citation should be improved entire sections are devoid of such.

Other than that I find it a smooth read (something we overlook too often here) well thought out and binds well together into an overall subject. Tirronan 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've cut down the section on ships of the line. And there are now more inline cites in the strategy & doctrine section. The Land 19:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I could do with a few more citations for the article, but overall it looks good and it read well. My only major gripe was the small picture size; having to zoom every picture up to see the guns and such is really annoying. On a more humous note, it would seem that battleship's FAC nom and my FARC request for Iowa class battleship were requested at almost the exact same time. Hows that for odd? TomStar81 (Talk) 21:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment some of the citations aren't properly formatted. You should use the cite web or cite news template instead of just listing a web address. I'm slowly going through the article, but it seems decent.-BillDeanCarter 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think they all now have author/publisher information and retrieval dates. The Land

• Comments as I go... whew this is obviously a long and complicated article.
  • Is there any reason for using long dashes twice in the opening paragraphs? This seemed really awkward to me... wouldn't normal hyphens do, or no hyphens at all? Sorry if this has already been belabored over.

No, I think I just got overthusiastic about replacing hyphens with longer dashes.... think I've sorted it out now. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Intro is excellent otherwise. Perhaps a model intro, even. This awkward first paragraph though... it took my attention away from the content and made me think about the style too much.
  • "the first screw battleship ever" What is a screw battleship? Important in context but unfamiliar to many readers, should have a very brief definition, especially as there's no article to read to easily find out what the term means. "capital ship" is another term used several times in important context but never defined. But the meaning is more obvious with that one.

Thanks for that. That section has recently been trimmed and the context was, in the previous version, clear. I've removed the screw point because we're now not dealing with that particular subtelty in this article. (If you're interested, the relevant material is now at ship of the line and ironclad warship.). The Land 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "out to be one of the most unusual, if not outright bad, designs ever built" I assume the source means "bad battleship designs", not just bad designs in general? Should be clarified though.
  • Again with the hyphens and dashes... why is it "all-big-gun" one paragraph and 'all–big–gun" the next? Then it becomes "'ll–big–gun concept" a paragraph later.

Same as above. The Land 17:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "if no negotiated solution could be found" kind of comes out of the blue, showing a lack of political context in this article with respect to the pre-WW1 arms race. Thus far the article had successfully avoided having to cover any of the political conflicts that lead to the development of battleships, but the language here kind of begs the question of what is meant by a "negotiated solution" and what conflict was it in response to anyway? Is there any easy way to address this? Even a mention of the applicable article on the early 1900s arms race would be good. There's something about covering the arms race in such detail without even hinting at why there was one rubs me the wrong way. Granted this is an article on battleships, but they were built for reasons much more intricate than countries wanting big ships, and these reasons are important to mention. This is a complicated request, I'm not asking people to bend over backwards here... just wondering what people think. It eventually does cover this a bit better, so I suspect only a moderate tweak is needed earlier on, such as a sentence that begins, "An arms race began because of..." The rest of the article does what looks to be a fine job of covering political concerns without lingering on them.

Hope I've addressed this with this edit. The Land 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The Land reverted my addition of the years for the Age of Sail, but I just copied the years given in the WP article. Some years for this time frame should be given in the battleship article.

I was pondering this. I can see why you added the years, but the age of sail] article gives little support to them and they're basically arbitrary; furthermore the ship-of-the-line wasn't the dominant ship for the whole period specified (line of battle not invented until 1640s). So arguably we shouldn't use 'age of sail' at all. I was just stuck for an alternative. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Isn't "Jeune Ecole school of thought" redundant? Ecole is french for school.

Oui, mais c'est le Wikipedia anglais. Les rosbifs ne comprend tout les mots francais. The Land 17:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The last two paragraphs under "Value for Money" are almost totally uncited. These are important, interpretative paragraphs, and I don't doubt they're backed up by sources though.
  • I will probably give a weak support if my above concerns are addressed or at least replied to. My main concern after them is that there are too many short, 2-3 sentence paragraphs, particularly early on... giving the body of this article a choppy feel to it. E.g. sections like "The Pre-Dreadnought" Some sections are brilliant, but the article as a whole is still a bit uneven. --W.marsh 17:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment the photos of Jackie Fisher and Vittorio Cuniberti are far too large. — BillC ^talk 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  There is no size defined for them (any more): this accords with the Manual of Style, but does mean that if you have your image width preference set to 300px or so that portrait photos display very large. Can't see a way round it, as redefining them with fixed width would violate the MoS (and result in other people complaining ;-) ). The Land 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Article looks better now, except the lack of citations under the second half of "Value for Money". It would be nice to know where these arguments are from, for further reading if nothing else. It's pedantic though, so count me as a support. --W.marsh 01:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll be glad to support this concise and well-balanced presentation of a huge amount of information, once some details have been taken care of:

1. Please don't leave the delimitation of the subject uncertain. Above, Nichalp quotes the opening sentence: "Battleships are very large, heavily-armored warships with a main battery consisting of the largest caliber of guns," and proposes that the Turtle ships fit it. It seems to me a lapse of logic to protest that yes, they may fit it, but the article is about "ships which have been classified or described as battleships". See, that wasn't clear from reading the article. If that's the definition of the subject, then the reader should be told so, immediately, rather than be confusingly told that the definition of the subject is a matter of size, armor, and guns.

   I think this is quite a difficult point. A moon is like a planet, but isn't. There is a clear definition of what a planet is laid down by an authoritative body. By contrast there is no clear definition of what a battleship is. One cannot list all the planets in existence because we have no knowledge of many places that there might be planets. By contrast, one can list all the battleships that have ever been in existence, as defined (for instance) by the attitudes of particular navies or authoritative reference works. It is these ships that the article is about.

   We cannot include the turtle ship because calling it a 'battleship' is OR. There is an argument, though not a settled one, that in a coincidental but nonetheless important manner it shared characteristics of the ironclad warship, so it may deserve a mention in that article.

   Given the vast range of vessels which the term describes according to its OED definition, it is very difficult to pick a succint one-line definition (or, far more accurately, description). As NVO points out above, anyone who relies on the first sentence as a comprehensive definition of a battleship will find it includes battlecruisers (from 1907 to the 1940s) and first-class armoured cruisers (in the late 19h century). Read in a technical sense it also excludes all ships-of-the-line (no armour), broadside ironclad frigates (no main battery), and indeed previous generations of modern battleships (if a battleship has 16in guns and someone builds one with 18in guns it no longer carries 'the largest calibre'). To incorporate all of this subtlety into one short sentence is asking too much of the English language.

   Exactly how we resolve this I don't know. Once one regards the opening sentence as a description not a definition, and reads it in conjunction with the following paragraph, the problem goes away. Surely that is enough? The Land 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

2. There are far too many very short paragraphs and also short sections. Or there were, I've done a merge operation, but please check if you think it appropriate. You may want to do it differently, or at least want to re-cast some "topic sentences" (=first sentence of a paragraph), as some of them now no longer refer to all of the content of the paragraph. I do think a good deal of merging was necessary, but I was too ignorant to fix the consequences in some cases. (In other words, The Land, please fix the mess I've made... sorry.) Also I had to give up on simply merging pargraphs in the "dreadnoughts in other countries" section; it needs som more radical reconstructuring to make shorter 'graphs possible, I think.
3. POV alert: the narrative comes from a certain point of view in the World War II section. This is sometimes subtle—a general impression that the narrator is speaking from British or American soil—but sometimes obvious, as in the use of praisewords like "gamely" or "brave". (Guess which nationalities are capable of such qualities and attitudes? The Japanese? Wrong.) Finns seem like nicer people than Germans, too.

   I've rephrased the most egregious paragraph here- am just about to have a read for subtle pro-English bias. Bit surprised that no-one has pointed out that the page plays Rule Britannia if you read it for long enough ;) The Land 20:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

4. Minor detail: I've done some copyediting and proofreading (and restored many hyphens...) but I wasn't able to supply the missing Japanese ship here: "including HMS Victory, Warrior, the Japanese the Swedish Vasa..." What ship was this? Bishonen | talk 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

This was the Mikasa - I added it. --MoRsE 19:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Well-written, it has lots of citations and references.--Bryson 03:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The article states, "There were also several old ships of the line still used as housing ships or storage depots. Of these, all but HMS Victory were sunk or scrapped by 1957." What about USS Constitution? Does she figure into the mold of a ship of the line? TomStar81 (Talk) 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say no as the USS Constitution is a frigate, i.e. neither a ship-of-the-line, nor a battleship.--MoRsE 08:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In that case you may want to make a note of that in the notes section; if the thoughts occured to me, it has probably occured to others as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support although my views can be considered somewhat biased due to my involvement in the rewriting of the article I must say that I am very pleased with the current version. Most of the concerns that have been raised above have been addressed and it feels like that it is mostly the fine-tuning (minor spelling errors, minor rewording etc) that is left. I personally took care of the two last red links that I found there. --MoRsE 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose 60KB of readable prose surpasses WP:LENGTH; summary style should be employed to bring the prose to within guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the featured article B movie gets a pass on this criteria? B movie comes in at 95 kilobytes long and Battleship comes in at a not that much smaller 86 kilobytes long. What are the strategies for fixing the Battleship article without losing the information? Obviously move the information to other articles, but how do you organize those other articles so that the information on battleships is at your fingertips?-BillDeanCarter 00:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Saying 60k 'surpasses' WP:LENGTH is untrue. The precise words are: "> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)". I think this is such a broad topic. The guideline also says: "Discuss the overall topic structure with other editors. Determine whether the topic should be treated as several shorter articles and, if so, how best to organize them. Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage; certainly, size is no reason to remove valid and useful information.". This article has already twice forked material away (to ship of the line and ironclad warship and there is no consensus for further splits. Regards, The Land 09:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Remember that a large part of this comes from the extensive notes and references section (almost 10 kilobytes)--MoRsE 09:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

B Movie recently underwent Featured article review due to its size, and Sandy said 60KB of readable prose (not including references). M3tal H3ad 11:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. However, B Movie remains an FA at 67k of readable prose.Indo-Greek Kingdom is 91k of readable prose and is featured. There is no guideline that says "an article cannot be featured if it is above X length" and there is no problem giving large subjects large articles. The Land 12:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Reading the B Movie FA Review is actually quite instructive. It's clear that SandyGeorgia has a fairly narrow interpretation of the article length guideline, but it's equally clear that the consensus is not to prevent something being an FA on this basis alone. The Land 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think, in the light of Sandy's comment, that the size should be reduced - probably by at least 10 Kb. This should be done by weeding out redundant wording and by rationalising larger portions of text. In particular, there are problems in the prose. Here are random examples from the lead that indicate the need for a thorough run-through by a copy-editor who's relatively unfamiliar with the text. Don't just fix these examples.

Well, let's hope there's such a copy-editor who's going to come along and do so (and for all the other FAs where a near-identical comment has been left by this user). The Land 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "better-armed and better-armored than cruisers and destroyers" - make it "better armed and armored than cruisers and destroyers".
  • "Battleships have evolved a great deal over time" - spot the two redundant words.
  • "to describe a developed type of ironclad warship" - Unsure why "developed" is included.
  • "and by the 1890s design had become relatively standard on what is now known as the pre–Dreadnought battleship." Clumsy clause; I'd be expecting something like "and by the 1890s, the design of ... had been standardised ...".
  • "In 1905 HMS Dreadnought heralded a revolution in battleship design, and for many years modern battleships were referred to as dreadnoughts." You need to add "since that time,".
  • "In 1905 HMS Dreadnought heralded a revolution in battleship design, and for many years modern battleships were referred to as dreadnoughts." But they no longer do? This brings up a larger problem in the lead: it appears to be a potted history, whereas many readers will expect more prominent reference to battleships as they are now.

Battleships 'as they are now' means trivia about museum ships. The article treats battleships as history, because they are history. The Land 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "The global arms race in battleship construction in the early 1900s was a significant factor in the origins of the First World War, which saw a clash of huge battlefleets at the Battle of Jutland." Only in the origins of the war, and not its conduct/outcome?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tony1 (talk • contribs). Bishonen | talk 09:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

This is an arguable point - one could write a Ph.D. on whether battleships were more important in causing WWI or concluding it. The Land 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Shiloh

I believe this article represents some of the best of what wiki is about. I find the style tight and communicative as well as being well footnoted and sourced. Tirronan 21:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The claim in the article that "this total of 23,741 men represented more than the American casualties of the American Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War combined" is certainly false. Casualties from those three wars, which are not precisely known, probably exceeded an estimated 90,000 men, mostly from disease (see United States casualties of war). Probably what was intended was a comparison of battle casualties rather than total casualties. —Kevin 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed The statement should be changed as the casualties were from a 2 day battle and most if not all of them would be combat related. Tirronan 06:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Completed The statement was amended to read "battle related casulties" Tirronan 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I am just a little bit concerned about the sources used in this article. I am not quite sure why Time-Life Books are being used, for example. Larry Daniel's book received excellent reviews in both The Journal of Southern History and The Journal of American History in 1998, so I am happy to see it being used. But why is James McDonough's encyclopedia entry being used rather than his book Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), apparently a classic in the field, according to one of the reviews of Daniel's book that I read? Awadewit 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answer While I am not the author of this article I can answer that most books fall into 2 catagories, the overview and the detailed play by play. Writing articles for Wikipedia requires a bit of both. I know that for me when I write a article on a battle there are times that I require the 40,000 ft view of the battle and times when I have to know that Mr. Smith's brigade was at xyz location at 0000 CST and engaged abc's brigade using efg tactics. I am sure this is why the editors used the wide ranging types for referrence. I will note that some 11 books were used in this writing and surely the exclusion of 1 book, however worthy, should not affect this article. Tirronan 14:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that. But there are scholarly books that cover both categories. One does not need to stoop to Time-Life books in order to garner either perspective, is my point. Also, one should not use an encyclopedia article to write another encyclopedia article. Encyclopedia articles are summaries of information, therefore one should turn to sources with more information and then decide what is important to include in an encyclopedia article (which is why encyclopedia articles are inherently POV, by the way, but that is an entirely different point). I did not think that wikipedia was simply trying to copy other encyclopedias, so one should not use them as sources. One should use more detailed, specific scholarly works. And since this is supposed to be featured article, one of wikipedia's best, after all, shouldn't it reflect the best research practices? Awadewit 14:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As the author of the article, but not the person who requested this review, let me point out that the objective of footnoting in Wikipedia is to provide verifiability. If I can do that with the books available in my library, I will do so. It should not matter whether facts and opinions of historians have been extracted from popular books for the general public (although I believe that if you take a close look at the Time-Life series and ignore the abundance of photographs and paintings, you will find that they are very well written and comprehensive, and usually have a distinguished set of prominent Civil War historians as consultants) or from other encyclopediae. (As to the concept of "copying from an encyclopedia," I find that interesting because many people in this community cite the need for making something "encyclopedic" without really knowing what that means. I would suggest that if information is summarized in a professional encyclopedia, it is by its very nature "encyclopedic" and is direct evidence that the information is being presented at an appropriate level for another encyclopedia article.) Furthermore, the more scholarly a particular reference is, the more unlikely that the average reader will be able to access that book or article if he or she is really concerned about the verifiability. (There are some Wikipedia authors who prefer online sources so that readers can merely click to verify the information, although I generally avoid those because they often do not cite their sources and almost never footnote them.) When I write a Wikipedia article that is fully footnoted, my technique is to use the more scholarly sources for analysis and for the very specific, detailed level facts of a battle. However, there are many paragraphs in most articles that are presented as background or aftermath and I think that it is perfectly reasonable that their verifiability derives from broader, more popular sources. Hal Jespersen 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• I cite WP:ATT: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication." The most reliable sources on the civil war are publications by civil war historians from university presses. Manuscripts that go to university presses are peer-reviewed by other scholars in the field before they are published. Most are rejected, therefore the few that are published are known to be good.
• You have missed my point entirely about enyclopedias. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to copy other encyclopedia articles. Even copying the structure and gist of another enyclopedia's article (without copying their wording) is plagiarism. The person who wrote that article decided what information to include and what information to exclude. That decision and his or her decision on how to structure the article and his or her words are all owned. Moreover, to write an encyclopedia article one must know more than is contained in other encyclopedia articles. One cannot write a summary after only reading a summary. But my earlier point was that McDonough has written an important book on this topic, therefore it is his book which the editors should have read, not his encyclopedia article.
• It is the job of the editors and the writers to present the scholarly material in an accessible way. Don't sidestep the issue.
• The wikipedia authors who prefer online sources are wrong. Online sources change; one cannot be sure if the information one referenced is there from day to day. Print sources remain stable. Also, very few scholarly sources are available online for free, so I am not sure what kinds of sources they would be advocating for.
• Scholars also write "background" material and discuss the "aftermath" of battles; do not pretend that such information is not available. Such posturing does not lend credibility to your arguments. Awadewit 17:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

This seems overzealous for a mere encyclopedic article. We're not an academic forum. Are there any specific problems with reliability in the sources used or are you just demanding more detail?

Peter ^Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We may not be an academic forum, but we are supposed to be using academic sources. Would you read an article on string theory that had been written entirely on the basis of popular science books? No, you would not. Why? Because popular books are forced to simplify their discussions of topics to reach a larger audience. (Note that in the string theory article, in the "Further Reading" section, the popular books are separated from the scholarly books and only the scholarly works are used as references.) The same problems of popularization are true in history (though maybe to a lesser degree). In history, some of the bigger problems tend to be sensationalization and distortion. I have not yet tried to find reviews for every source here, but I did notice right off that only one source from a university press, and that source, McPhersons's one-volume history of the Civil War was specifically written for a lay audience. I have already objected to the Time-Life books (a money-making enterprise, not a scholarly enterprise) and the enyclopedia entry (the historian who wrote that has a far better book and encyclopedia entries should not rely on other encyclopedia entries when there are other sources). FAs are supposed to be wikipedia's best, as I said before, so they should also reflect the best in research. If I were a historian coming to this page to evaluate it and I saw those sources, I would be skeptical. Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That any work of non-fiction that isn't written for academics should be disqualified as a source for FAs is unrealistic and extremely elitist. It would cause a huge problem for editors who don't have access to (or experience with) academia and would make it extremely difficult for the readers the articles are actually intended for to verify anything. And excluding any work that has "encyclopedia" in the title is just pretentious. Avoiding general encyclopedias like EB and Encarta is advisable, but not ones about specific topics. That a book intended for laypersons might not be as detailed and up-to-date as those intended for academics doesn't mean that it's unreliable and unfit for referencing encyclopedic articles.

I'm sure the article can be improved if new research comes to light, but it seems almost paranoid

Peter ^Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not elitist. I am asking the editors of wikipedia to have high standards for the FAs. Editors and readers have access to libraries, by the way. I am not going to reiterate my point about encyclopedias because if you don't understand it, you don't understand it. I have explained it twice now. If you are content with using less reliable, less accurate information, that's your perogative, but I would not make the argument that wikipedia's FAs should rely on such sources. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about a pretty basic historical topic. It does require some thorough research to be verifiable, but not bleeding edge academia. We're talking pretty straightforward synthesis of history writing, not convoluted or very obscure theories. Seriously, Awadewit, you're overshooting the intent of our verifiability policies by miles. What you're suggesting seems to be that we should be a... no, wait... the Shining Beacon of Ultimate and Final Attestability. It's not just high standards; it's impossibly, disproportionately and unnecessarily high standards.

And you still fail to produce any detailed criticism of facts; just a lot of prejudice about literature you don't appear to have read yourself.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More comments I think that this article has the potential to reach FA status, it just needs some work on its sources (see above and below) and a few other things.

• Could the editors add some political context at the beginning of the article like that they have included the end?
• His encampment at Pittsburg Landing displayed his most consequential lack of such concern—his army was spread out in bivouac style, many around the small log church named Shiloh (the Hebrew word that means "place of peace"),[5] spending time waiting for Buell with drills for his many raw troops, without entrenchments or other awareness of defensive measures. - convoluted sentence
• Fix red-links or de-link.
• He was concerned that the sounds of marching and the Confederate soldiers test-firing their rifles after two days of rain cost them the element of surprise. - "would cost"?
• In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps. - I don't understand how the "in fact" follows from the previous sentence
• Grant telegraphed to Halleck on the night of 5 April, "I have scarcely the faintest idea of an attack (general one) being made upon us, but will be prepared should such a thing take place." - uncited quotation
• The confusing alignment of the Confederate troops helped to reduce the effectiveness of the attack. Johnston and Beauregard had no unified battle plan. - why was it "confusing"? Although this becomes clearer later in the paragraph, this opening sentence is jarring.
• Johnston had telegraphed Confederate President Jefferson Davis that the attack would proceed as: "Polk the left, Bragg the center, Hardee the right, Breckinridge in reserve." - uncited quotation
• The article is undercited in general. Adding citations from scholarly sources would fix this problem.

• Ex: The assault was nevertheless ferocious, and some of the many inexperienced Union soldiers of Grant's new army fled for safety to the Tennessee River. Others fought well but were forced to withdraw under strong pressure and attempted to form new defensive lines. Many regiments fragmented entirely; the companies and sections that remained on the field attached themselves to other commands. During this period, Sherman, who had been so negligent in preparation for the battle, became one of its most important elements, appearing everywhere along his lines and inspiring his raw recruits to resist the initial assaults, despite staggering losses on both sides.
• The "Wallace's lost division" section has only one reference - which parts are from Daniel and which from Smith? not helpful to the curious reader or the reader looking to verify
• "Hornet's nest" section has only citation as well. I won't keep listing them all.

• rolling up Union positions one by one - "rolling up" is a little colloquial
• What about photographs? I know there were photographs taken after the battle (I was once a Civil War buff myself). I know there is one of the sunken road, in particular, that is good. Are these not fair use? Awadewit 19:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• reply Most of this I can agree with, as a ex military type I am not sure that rolling up is all that colloquial as it is a action taken after a successful flanking attack and is used often. Most the more exacting military terminology might bring more problems (explaining to the expected public ear) than it is worth and very 20th century. As for the rest, this seems to be rather easy to accomplish. Though committing to purchase a particular book is out... dangerous precedent there. Tirronan 20:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

What about defining "rolling up," then? And, there are libraries, you know. Awadewit 20:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Concise, yet thorough, and overall a well-written article, but I have a few concerns that I would like to see taken care of:
  • The galleries of portraits don't seem terribly relevant to the article. All the commanders have their own article and anyone curious about what they look like can check the links for their faces.
  • The lengthy footnote about the history of Shiloh Church is not relevant to the battle nor is it military history. I think it should be removed, or at least limited to a much shorter pointer about the Hebew origins of the name.
  • What exactly does "bivouac style" mean? Is it just military lingo for "not ready for battle"? Why not just use the more recognizable "encamp(ing)" instead of "bivouac(king)?"
  • The account of Forrest's cavalry charge and his dramatic (and ruthless) escape makes one curious if he actually survived such a serious wound. Just a sub-clause whether he survived or not would be enough.

All that said, I am not in the least fond of footnote orgies unless there are very good reasons for them. Providing hyper-detailed directions for editors who want to be able to pick out completely random facts and demand that they be pointed to a specific page (preferably in three separate sources) is not what I call a valid reason; we have talk pages for that kind of minutiae. As long as there are good, general citations and a fair amount of general sources, the footnote counters should be the ones to provide valid reasons to demand more references. And I need to be absolutely clear about this: I am not supporting the article if it turns into something that looks like this.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think that Peter should refuse to support an article because he feels it is overcited. He should also note that the sources at Roman-Spartan War come from academic presses. At this point in wikipedia's history, wikipedia needs to bolster its legitimacy. Citation is one way to do that. And to be clear, I am neither demanding that the editors cite "completely random facts" nor demanding "three separate sources" for everything. That is an exaggeration as anyone who has read my posts can see. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously as a reference source, its own references have to be serious. I am asking, are there better sources out there that will make this article more accurate and appear more reliable to the world? The answer to that question is: yes.
• Peter also accuses me of "counting sources" but that is not what I am doing. For the first paragraph of the "Hornet's Nest" section, the footnote reads" Nevin, pp. 121-29, 136-39; Esposito, map 36; Daniel, pp. 207-14; Woodworth, pp. 179-85; Eicher, p. 227." Now, how is the reader supposed to know what information the editors got from where? Such a footnote is disingenuous. No one can really use it verify the editors' work which is part of what having the footnotes is for. Also, scholars work long and hard to come up with ideas and now their ideas have been so jumbled together that you don't know whose idea is whose. If any of the ideas in this paragraph are unique to a particular scholar, that must be recognized (scholars don't get books published unless they are writing something new). Awadewit 12:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're being quite paranoid about the use of sources. I mean, you don't actually have concrete complaints about any fact statements, just a general distrust of non-academia.

I don't have a distrust of non-academia. Popular history and science books are written by academics. They are just written in a way that often distorts reality in order to sell books. Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the multiple-source footnotes, one is very tempted to point out that the reader should actually look those sources up before complaining about them. :-p But if the problem is too many sources in one footnote, then I suggest cutting down on the amount of citations rather than upping the amount of footnotes. I mean, the sources are still there, and every single fact statement doesn't need to have it's own separate page citation to be verifiable.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already said that the Daniel book is good, it received good reviews from scholars. I have already made my point about the Time-Life books and the enyclopedia entry.

• The Longest Night - for "nonscholars" according to Publisher's Weekly on amazon.com; the book received no scholarly reviews at all (searched JSTOR), which means it is hard to know how good it is
• West Point Atlas of American Wars - link is broken; reviewed well (as the only thing available) by scholars in 1959-60; Military Affairs 23.4 (1959) and The American Historical Review 65.4 (1960); there might be better things available now, who knows?
• Ripples of Battle - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR); according to his webpage, the author is a classics professor, so that would be his area of expertise, not the US Civil War
• Nothing but Victor - no scholarly reviews (see JSTOR)

Awadewit 15:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I was away for most of the weekend and returned to see this amazing display of time consumption. If you folks would like to clarify the article's language, increase the number of footnotes (versus the generally one-per-paragraph style I used, as do many historians, BTW), or improve the quality of the sources used, please be my guest, as with any article in Wikipedia. Hal Jespersen 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• One of the ironies of this situation is that I belong to a listserv of eighteenth-century academics. They are currently discussing footnoting. The very issue I complained about here, that paragraphs use numerous citations in one note so that it is impossible to tell what information comes from where has already been complained about on that listserv. I don't think I can quote the person from the listserv since they did not intend their words to be broadcast to the web (if I can, please let me know). Such a complaint is not irrational since other academics believe that it hinders the verification process as well. Awadewit 09:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support If the galleries can go. These are at least as disruptive as random lists. Circeus 00:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok most of this I can support however I can't condone being forced to use a source by another editor to get an ok. If you find there are sections of this article are not to standard due to lack of completeness of the information that is one thing. Being held to another's standard on sources is a bit much. I believe that I have read most if not every source Hal has used and there wasn't much contention to be had (as opposed to Waterloo where 1/3 of the authors seem to have a slant and national honor stands to be slighted). If I find that source I will be happy to read it and the article again to ensure there are no revelations to be had might even cite and source it, but I do not wish to be in a academic argument as to what is scholarly or not. I don't have a way to evaluate sources by that status and I am not an academic publishing a concise and complete work to a specialized audience with those types of resources available to me. I feel like I am being held to a standard that I have little hope to have enough information on to properly evaluate. I think I missed something in the FA status guidelines. Tirronan 00:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I found a few books on Shiloh and Shiloh: In Hell Before Night (1977), was there at a dirt cheap price so its been ordered along with a few others. It will be here the 19th I'll read it and source/cite accordingly. Hopefully that will end any controversy Tirronan 19:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

After talking with Hal and the fact that we have gotten 2 votes in 10 days I think that the article should be pulled from consideration for FAC due to lack of interest. Tirronan 21:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you should pull it, I think you should respond to the comments above (I made more than those about sources). Also, sometimes it takes awhile; there are a lot of articles here. I would be willing to support the article if my concerns were addressed in good faith. There are a lot of good aspects to this article. I think two votes is technically a consensus and, apparently, the nominators can also voice their support (although I think that is rather unethical, it is generally accepted here). Awadewit 21:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments on the prose.
  • "While Beauregard's concern was well-founded, it proved not to be a factor; Union forces had not detected the advancing Confederates." I don't see the logic in the first two clauses. Change semicolon to colon.
  • Needs redundant wording weeded out throughout; for example "In fact, the army had spent the entire night bivouacking undetected in order of battle just two miles (3 km) away from the Union camps." Remove first two words and "away".
  • "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" - why "but"?

It's good, and thus worth fixing throughout. Tony 08:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• replies on the prose
  • General PTG Beauregard was concerned that the troops test firing rifles had given away the suprise. Brutal as it may sound, tactically it was a blunder of the 1st order for a commander to be as unaware as Grant was on an Confederate army camped on his army's doorstep. If the Federals had sent out patrols and deployed outposts correctly then the CSA Army would have been detected and would have marched straight into prepared earthworks. At that point you have a Battle of Franklin all over again. General Beauregard had every reason to be concerned that his unit was walking straight into an abbator. Perhaps that entire section should be rewriten.
  • "The attack turned into a simple but massive frontal assault" that turn of phrase has always bothered me. Again it should be reworked.Tirronan 20:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coronation Street

previous FAC

FARC

This article has been given a massive reworking since it was demoted from Featured Article status in August 2006. Coronation Street has been fully remodelled, presenting the five main decades of the programme in sections of similar length and structure. The lead has also been heavily rewritten and lengthened as well as early sections being based around the background to the programme and its characters and characterisation. Most importantly, the article is now extremely well referenced from a very wide range of sources (print sources, video, DVD and Internet). Ben 14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose images need revamping. I list the problems for each one:

1. Main Image:Coronationstreet2004.jpg has evidence of a low quality JPEG filetype.
2. No source for Image:Coronationstreet2004.jpg user created screen cap or taken from a website?
3. No source for Image:Gail Potter 1975.jpg " "
4. No fair use rationale for Image:Enaelsiefight.jpg
5. Both Image:Enaelsiefight.jpg, Image:Valerie Barlow 1971 death.jpg and Image:Gail Potter 1975.jpg should be smaller to comply with fair use regulations
6. Image:Deirdrekenfight.jpg needs to be smaller, source and fair use rationale
7. Image:Bettabuy 1991.jpg needs to be reduced in size " "
8. Image:Deirdresentdown.jpg rationale + smaller size
9. Image:Karen Tracy 2004.jpg source? " "
10. Image:Rosamund St Viaduct.jpg fu rationale needed

An external links section may also be useful for including additional links, not just the ones in the infobox.--The Negotiator 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done I have addressed the problems raised with images, adding some newly created ones or creating similar ones which are fully sourced with adequate rationale. The external links section was removed because most were either superfluous or not advisable per WP:EL. Ben 12:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
• Ok:

1. Image:Ena and Elsie 1965.jpg, Image:Deirdresentdown.jpg and Image:Valerie Barlow 1971 death.jpg still need to be resized down. Apart from that it looks like you've fixed most of the above.--The Negotiator 13:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done Resized the three images in question as well as Image:Rosamund Street Viaduct 2002.jpg. Any other comments or suggestions, The Negotiator? Ben 17:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Reference 73 doesn't include access date & publisher.--The Negotiator 12:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Done Sorted out reference problem. Ben 12:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support, had a quick read through and didn't spot any problems.--The Negotiator 13:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: accurate, covers relevant areas, interestingly written and fully referenced. I did the spoken version, but have made no recent textual edits. Hassocks5489 13:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Minor object Image:Coronation Street Opening 2002.jpg needs to be scaled down to no more than 400px wide and tagged with {{subst:furd}}. ShadowHalo 00:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have added the {{subst:furd}} tag and will address the problem with image sizing tomorrow when I have access to another computer. Ben 01:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Done Thanks to Mecu Ben 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Relies very heavily on http://www.corrie.net/about/who.html — a fan website. Also, references should be fully expanded so that all show publisher (many footnotes don't identify corrie.net as the publisher, and don't include full info last access date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I have addressed most of the points raised about the references in the article. I must disagree when you state that the article "relies very heavily" on Corrie.net - there were seven references to the website in question out of just over 90 in total...somewhat outweighed? Three references remain to Corrie.net, one is from an interview with Coronation Street archivist and historian, Daran Little, which is atrributed to William Hadcroft, the other two are to information that I have a print source for but do not have to hand at the moment. BenC533

• Oppose - 1a. Here are random examples from the top that indicate the need for a copy-edit throughout.
  • Redundant commas, such as before "in" in the first sentence, and "Between December 1960, and March 1961". Audit the whole text for this.
  • "Since its launch the programme has aired in many countries worldwide" - "in many countries" plus "worldwide" is awkward. Remove the first three words, unless it might have aired before its launch.
  • "The programme is also recognised as a drama serial" - if it's to be worded thus, we start to want a reference.
  • "Of the original cast, only one character remains today" - spot the redundant word.
  • "re-shape" - is it hyphenated? Tony 08:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia

This is a self-nomination. The article has had a peer review and has been passed as a good article and seems to meet the criteria.--Bookworm857158367 14:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• SupportComment Main photo lacks source information, and should have a more specific tag. "Tyutcheva fired", yes, but possibly only because the children were growing up and had less need of a nanny? I still think you need to cite this statement, I see my hidden comment requesting one is still there! DrKiernan 16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Added the requested citation; also retagged the photo. The portrait is from 1914 and is definitely in the public domain. It was published on postcards during World War One. In the U.S. I think any photo that was published before 1924 is generally in the public domain.--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I was under the impression that users were only supposed to nominate one article at a time for FAC so that they can concentrate on improving that one and so that the reviewers don't get overwhelmed. See directions at the top of the page. Thanks for your consideration. Awadewit 16:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already here and has been commented upon. I don't think it's necessary to remove one of the submissions. They're related anyway. Any comments or suggestions on either of them?--Bookworm857158367 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is no rule. If a nominator thinks that he can support at the same time efficiently more than one nominations, nobody can prevent him from doing so.--Yannismarou 11:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought that this sentence in the second paragraph at the top of the page was a polite way of saying not to do that: "Please do not post more than one nomination at a time, as this may make it difficult to do justice to each." I will review this article later. Awadewit 12:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Here are my comments.
• Throughout her lifetime she was noted for her friendliness and interest in the lives of the soldiers. - parallelism

Fixed.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why not just call the first section "Childhood"?

Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Contemporaries described her as a pretty, flirtatious girl, broadly built - begin each section with her name so that it is not confusing for the reader

Done.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• her looks were compared to one of Botticelli's angels - her looks or her?

Her looks, specifically, not her character.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe her "features" then?

Changed phrase to "physical appearance." --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do we care she was left-handed?

I don't see why not. It is an interesting factoid, mentioned in one of the aforementioned biographies by a person who knew her and thought it was worth commenting upon. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Maria's moodiness coincided with her menstrual period, which the Tsarina and her daughters referred to as a visit from "Madame Becker". - it seems like you are reinforcing a false stereotype here

Nonetheless, Tsarina Alexandra mentioned in a letter to Tsar Nicholas that Maria bellowed and was irritable because she had her period. I have cited the letter. In Maria's case the stereotype appeared to be true. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• suffered frequent attacks of haemophilia and nearly died several times - I'm not sure, does not suffer an attack of haemophilia? The wording seemed odd to me. I thought one either had it or one did not - it was not a condition that came and went (it's genetic, as you say).

I have changed the phrase to "complications of haemophilia."--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• You spell hemophilia differently throughout the article.

I have regularized the spelling of haemophilia throughout. --Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is probably a little too much about Anastasia at the end of the article. I believe you submitted an article about Anastasia? Why not include a fork to that article and summarize a bit more here?

The subject of a survivor appears relevant to both Maria and Anastasia because there is speculation that Maria survived rather than Anastasia.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, so focus on Maria's possible survival rather than Anastasia's.

Done. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• "six years at the russian court" link does not work in the footnotes

Link worked when I tried it. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't work here. Could others try it? Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I get the site but not the file (just a red cross), is it something to do with security settings or download times? (Don't ask me about computers). DrKiernan 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be. When I click on the link I get the Gilliard text.--Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Please format all of your references the same way in the bibliography.

I have attempted to reformat the references the same way. Please tell me what else you need done. --Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

We are still missing publication companies on some of them. And what is with all of the commas? It is really hard to follow. Try MLA-style or Chicago-style or something. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reformatted the references the same way it was done in the Anastasia biography. It's been more than a decade since I used MLA-style, so I may have made mistakes. Let me know if there's still more to do on it. --Bookworm857158367 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, which of these biographies have been reviewed by scholars? I noticed that they are all popular biographies. Which ones have been endorsed by scholars in the field, meaning that they aren't just written by some fly-by-night biographer who doesn't know any history? Awadewit 16:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I will fix these things tonight or tomorrow when I have a little more time. Regarding your comment about "popular biographies," I have to take issue with the implication that they are "fly-by-night." The sources used here are for the most part primary sources, by people who actually knew the grand duchess and wrote memoirs and people who conducted interviews with those who knew her. Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in this field. I doubt that the grand duchesses receive more than a passing reference in the sort of scholarly reference you're undoubtedly discussing, one which deals primarily with the government of Nicholas II or with the Russian Revolution. The texts I am using are ones that deal primarily with the personal lives of Tsarina Alexandra or of the grand duchesses, in which they are the central figures and not the political situation in the country. The Fate of the Romanovs, by King and Wilson, also makes use of previously unpublished (in English) material found in the Russian Federation. The biography at the end of most of these books is extensive. These are also the same references that were used for the two previous biographies about her sisters that were listed as Featured Articles, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia and Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia. In short, just because something is "popular" does not mean it is poorly researched or "fly by night." As a journalist, I believe in using primary sources wherever possible, which is what I have done.--Bookworm857158367 16:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your respones to my responses.

• Many popular biographies are "fly-by-night." They are written by biographers who study their subject for a year or so and then write a book. The author then moves on to the next subject. These biographies tend to be shoddy. See Talk:Cicero for one example that I uncovered. Popular biographies written by scholars can be better because the author knows the field. They are still often sensantionalized and distored, though, in order to sell books. That is why it is better to use scholarly biographies.

These particular books are the best that are available in this particular field and are well-researched.--Bookworm857158367 17:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is interesting that you say you are using mostly primary sources. That would mean that this article is original research. Assembling primary materials and presenting them as an article is original research. You must rely only on what established experts in the field have said. I quote WP:ATT: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce." You may do one thing as a journalist but you have to do another thing on wikipedia.

By primary sources, I mean biographies that are written by people who knew the family and by biographers who have relied on scholarly research or interviews with people who knew the family, not by research I have personally done. We apparently mean different things by the term. These are books using secondary sources and interviews as references.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is right on the line of primary and secondary, in my opinion. If they did research, etc., it's more likely secondary, even if they knew the person. Although if the book has a highly slanted view, it's probably considered primary. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I tend to trust first-person point of view whenever possible. A biography or memoir by someone who actually knew the subject is second only to a published autobiography in the estimation I'd give it. I rate them as even more trustworthy when the same facts are cited independently by two or three or more different biographers. However, the references I've cited are a mix. Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoeveden were former ladies in waiting who knew the empress and conducted some independent research prior to writing their books; Anna Vyrubova was the best friend of the empress and also a lady in waiting; Pierre Gilliard was the tutor to the imperial children and had known them intimately from early childhood up until their imprisonment; Margaretta Eagar was the nanny to the four daughters of the Tsar up until 1904 and wrote her memoirs based on her experiences. However, Massie wrote Nicholas and Alexandra in the 1960s based on research of those prior sources and also from the analysis done by historians. Kurth's Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson is an account of Anna Anderson but also deals with other Russian emigrees and their perspective on the Anna Anderson case. Kurth did hundreds of interviews and referenced numerous books, court trials, etc. King and Wilson's The Fate of the Romanovs is primarily an account of the circumstances surrounding the imprisonment of the Romanovs and their execution utilizing documents and memoirs written in Russian and unpublished up until recently. There's a mix of references here. I've used the references that are the best for this particular subject. --Bookworm857158367 20:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• You say Nicholas and Alexandra is the gold standard in the field. I assume you mean scholars themselves use it. I will trust you on that.

Yes, Nicholas and Alexandra is a primary source used by most contemporary biographers.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I am not referring to scholarly discussions of the government or the revolution. Scholars write biographies as well.

And, as I explained above, the texts I have used are well-researched, well-cited and are factual.--Bookworm857158367 17:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that just because something is popular does not mean it is poorly-researched, it just means that one must treat it with extra skepticism, which is what I am doing. One must investigate whether or not it is reliable. Awadewit 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

However, are you familiar enough with these texts or their authors enough to call them fly-by-night? The references I am using are the best available for this particular subject. There ARE no "scholarly" biographies dealing specifically with Grand Duchess Maria Nikolaevna of Russia. There are several dealing with her parents and a number that deal primarily with the Russian Revolution in which she is mentioned in passing.--Bookworm857158367 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not refer to these biographies as "fly-by-night." I said many popular biographies are fly-by-night which is why I was asking about them (by the way, I think you, as the editor, should be able to defend your sources, which you are doing). But now we are getting to a much better answer - "the best available sources," other biographies don't mention her, etc. These are much better answers. Thank you. I withdraw the objection. Awadewit 17:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for similar reasons to those I've outlined for the subsequent nomination. Here are examples of why a copy-editor needs to be brought in to review the whole text.
  • "During her lifetime, Maria, too young to become a Red Cross nurse like her elder sisters during World War I, was patroness of a hospital and visited wounded soldiers instead." The last word is poorly positioned.
  • "She hoped to marry and have a large family." This purports to know what was going on inside her mind. It is odd to make such a bald statement in the lead, unreferenced.
  • "latter years of the twentieth century" - no, "latter" is the second of two items.
  • "rumor(ed)" occurs too often. Audit other repetitions, too, such as "described" ... "described".
  • "her physical appearance was compared to one of Botticelli's angels" - false contrast: insert "that of" or reword.
  • "Maria tended to be dominated by Anastasia because of the energy and enthusiasm of her younger sister. The pair were also dressed similarly for special occasions, wearing variations of the same dress." The first sentence is clumsy; why "also"? Tony 07:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If you or someone else would like to go through the article and copy-edit it, that's certainly welcome. As to the comment about the lead articles, I've seen conflicting opinions about whether they should include citations or not. The lead paragraphs are considered a summary of the rest of the article. The comment about her hoping to marry and have a large family is taken from letters she wrote and biographies about the family and is supported with a citation elsewhere in the article. These seem like relatively minor objections, however. I don't think it's horribly written. What do you think about the overall content? --Bookworm857158367 19:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Very detailed article, written in good language, adequately illustrated. - Vald 13:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Duchess Tatiana Nikolaevna of Russia

This is a self-nomination. This article has had a peer review and has been passed as a Good Article. I've tried to make it as broad and well-referenced as possible.--Bookworm857158367 13:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support Comment Sentence repeated in the lead. Needs a reference for the nicknames. DrKiernan 16:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed repeated sentence, added references for the nicknames.--Bookworm857158367 04:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the prominence of Occleshaw's claims, which are rather silly after all. However, I don't suppose I can really complain given that he was foolish (or business-savvy?) enough to make them. Perhaps "Some claim" should be changed to "Author Michael Occleshaw claims", and "However, most historians discount" in the Captivity and Death section could read "However, historians discount" DrKiernan 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Occleshaw is a fairly well-known historian of British military history, though, isn't he? The Tatiana book seems to be largely a flight of fancy, but he did dig up that diary entry by the sometimes untruthful Meinertzhagen claiming one of the grand duchesses was rescued. Granted, the speculation made in the book are laughed at by the majority and are refuted by the DNA tests done on the Romanov remains at Ekaterinburg, but the survival stories are part of the fascination for a number of people who are interested in this family. The missing grand duchess leaves the question open for some. But I've changed "some" to "Michael Occleshaw claims," and "Historians discount" since that's the truth. I moved most of the speculation to the Larissa Tudor entry last month.--Bookworm857158367 14:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fair. Thanks. DrKiernan 08:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ref #3 needs to state a page number.--Rmky87 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. Here are examples from the top, indicating that the whole text needs a run-through by a copy-editor who's unfamiliar with it.
  • "However" should not start a paragraph. Merge.
  • "Rasputin had released ardent, though completely innocent in nature,[33] letters written by the Tsarina and the four grand duchesses to him." Clumsy sentence.
  • "They circulated throughout society, fueling more rumors." What, the letters or the duchesses?
  • Overuse of "rumor(ed)".
  • Check for ungainly repetitions, such as "given" ... "given", and "fourteen-year-old Tatiana" ... "fourteen-year-old Tatiana".
  • "While she enjoyed the company of the soldiers she met, the young Tatiana also sometimes found their behavior shocking." Remove "she met" and "also" as redundant.
  • "As Tatiana grew into adulthood, she undertook more public appearances than her sisters and headed committees." What kind of committees? Awkward sentence. Tony 07:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Norte Chico civilization

An interesting topic with a side-order of academic mud-slinging. Thanks to Jmabel for help with Spanish, and Sandy for ref formatting. I don’t usually post long nominations, but I’m anticipating some concerns, so:

• Images. Yes, I’m relying on a picture of anchovies (a nice one!). If I can’t find any I’m confident of for the PD, I can’t find any, so don’t hold it against the article. Reviewers can tell me what they think of pics from here. I’m not sure what our consensus is on press kits.

• Prose. It’s a bit clunky because I have done prose attribution (BBC has reported, Shady argues, etc.) all over the place. I felt I had to with this one.

• Comprehensiveness. Everything I could find in English is here. I realize it's not exceptionally long, but there isn't too much out there for now.

• Neutral and stable. There is serious dispute over this topic, including over its name, and who should be credited with discovery. (This is why I’m attributing everything in-sentence.) I think it's handled well. People can follow a couple of the links to form their own opinion of the "Research controversies" section. Marskell 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Should Haas be introduced earlier than the Research controversies section since his name is invoked extensively in the text prior? Cramer is mentioned once before as well. BuddingJournalist 02:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I have added first names to all first mentions. Marskell 12:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support (I made some extremely minor contributions.) Well-written, well-referenced, structurally sound. Marskell has addressed the controversy very well, and this appears to be the best info on the net covering this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Needs map. Will support when it gets one. I cannot tell precisely where this civilization was from the text, because one of the boundaries given is a redlink. --Golbez 19:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, I agree it needs a map. But if I can't find one suitable for the public domain, how can this be held against the article? Marskell 20:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That which does not exist must be made. Find a map of Peru and shade in the appropriate area. But again, since I don't know what the appropriate area is, I cannot do this myself. So look at the lack of the map as indicative of a larger problem - the bounds of the region are not adequately expressed in the article. (Though it's the redlink that's the problem, so it's the lack of a proper outside article) --Golbez 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added "160 km north of Lima," for now. I agree and disagree, more generally. I absolutely agree that this article would be well-served by a map and better graphics generally; I anticipated that concern and said so in the nom. But I disagree with the contention that a lack is an oppose basis. WIAFA wording and general practice has never said you must have X graphic. At the same time, the prose should definitely allow you to "place the place" in your head. Is "160 km north of Lima" sufficient for the timebeing? Marskell 21:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Suitable enough for the time being, I switch to a Weak support. I'm amazed I'd never heard of this civilization before. --Golbez 21:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, so am I—at least a couple of paragraphs in the history of the world need to be rewritten, given its age. I very very vaguely recalled the CNN/BBC type stuff from 2001 ("Crazy old Civ discovered in Peru!") but heard no more about it in the mainstream media. And then I picked up the Mann book over Christmas and thought "holy sh*t, why isn't this on Wiki!" :). I'll be really curious to see how Brittanica treats it. They don't have anything yet. Marskell 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thorough, detailed, well-referenced, would look good on the front-page, support Ahadland 22:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support excellent, fascinating article. A few little nitpicks -
  • 'derived an identical list in their survey further north, while adding...' - so it's not identical, is it? ;) Needs another phrase here.
    • Indeed.
  • First sentence of the maritine civilization section is very awkward. Actually, the same for the cotton section.
    • The first on cotton was a real clunker--changed. I'm guessing you don't mean the first on MFAC, "It is the role of the maritime dietary component that has aroused debate", but the second "Much early fieldwork (prior to the realization of the full scope and inter-connectedness of the civilization) was done in the region of Aspero on the coast." I moved the subordinate clause out of the bracket.
      • Sorry, that's the one. Although I'm not actually a big fan of the first MFAC sentence either, it wasn't the one I meant to complain about ;) 'Role of the component' is kind of weak, and why 'maritime dietary component' instead of 'the role of seafood...'? (Maybe I lack imagination, but I can't think of any 'maritime dietary components' that aren't considered seafood...)
  • In the economy and government section - what is 'significant capacity'? Hundreds of people? Thousands? Several football stadiums?
    • None of the sources hazard a guess as to total population or total groups of workers on one site. It bothered me too, but it will have to remain general. "Significant capacity" was redundant with "considerable power," so I shuffled things.
  • 'a unique emergence of human government, one of two alongside Sumer (or three, if Mesoamerica is included as a separate case)' - why not include Mesoamerica separately? Is the contention that Mesoamerican government derived in some way from the Norte Chico, or just that the presence of government in Mesoamerica is disputed?
    • I'll reply to this one fully when I have the book in front of my again.
  • 'two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (Aspero and Bandurria) and possibly two more' - very awkward phrasing.
    • Is "Aspero and Bandurria are the only two confirmed shore sites in the Norte Chico (two others have been suggested)..." any better?
      • Much better.
  • 'In 2004 Haas et al. would write...' - where the et al doesn't include Shady, presumably. This is clear from the reference text but not from the main text, where this comes right after discussion of Haas, Creamer, and Shady as coauthors.
    • But doesn't "...while only noting Shady in footnotes" make clear she wasn't a coauthor?
      • Well, yeah... you just have to trust the reader to hit the end of the sentence and remember the beginning. That's not always a given.
  • Should Shady's article include mention of this controversy? Opabinia regalis 01:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, it probably should. I haven't paid as much attention to the blue links as I ought to have. I would worry about one general wiki-problem: a "Controversy" section creating a lopsided BLP.
      • It seems like this is probably a major aspect of her professional work, though, which would merit a mention.

Thanks for the comments. I've been wondering where everybody is... Marskell 15:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It's odd which articles people pick to review, isn't it? Opabinia regalis 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - the intro claims that the culture "was largely without art". That probably needs to be reworded. Even if we take "art" to mean narrowly visual representaions, there's no way of knowing whether little "art" was found because they produced little, or because it wasn't made of lasting materials. Zocky | picture popups 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Largely without" was already a re-wording of an apparent absence. I agree with you. I'd worried that saying they did not have art so far as we can tell now might be OR. I've qualified this with no "archaeologically apparent" art, (in brackets) in the intro. Note, near the end of the page, a similar point is made: they did, apparently, have instrumental music, so "no art" doesn't hold. Marskell 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support — another solid work by Marskell. — Deckiller 21:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support attribution isn't too distracting and the article seems to make the most of the meagre information available. (Love the anchovies picture, maybe a picture of a shoe horn next to it would help) Yomangani^talk 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of Sheffield

self-nomination (I am a major contributor). Though it is not for me to comment on whether this is well written, I do think that it meets the FA criteria of being comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable. —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment This poor nom has gone more than two days without comments. No support or oppose yet from me, because I haven't looked closely enough. The prose definitely needs auditing, judging from the lead. Comprehensiveness requirement seems to be satisfied, however. (Speaking of "however", avoid over-using it.) Refs seem to spell out attribution information properly. I'll try to edit the prose more myself, and get back to you with others concerns. Marskell 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am a tentative support, pending more feedback from others, and specifically more prose work. A first full read-through is good. Marskell 21:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I like the changes that you made to the introduction (I am regularly guilty of overuse of however, although I am not the originator of the one that you removed). I am happy to try to address any further concerns that you might have. —JeremyA (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comments keeping in mind that I know nothing whatsoever about the subject:

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment on the article. I will reply to each comment individually below. —JeremyA (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • The etymology of the name is mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon section, but it's not clear to me when the name was first applied to the area (between the 6th and 9th centuries?) That would also be a good thing to put in the lead. Along the same lines, is it known what the Romans called the area?

These are good questions, which would be great to answer—but they don't call them 'The Dark Ages' for nothing! The article is trying to balance two different, but very closely related histories: the history of the settlement called Sheffield, and the history of the entire area that is now within the boundaries of the City of Sheffield. So when I state at the end of the Romans section 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time' I am referring to the village that eventually grew and absorbed the surrounding villages/hamlets. Sheffield (along with slight variants in spelling) is the only known name of that core village. I have narrowed the date of the founding of that settlement as far as I can without going into the realm of original research—it is after the Anglo-Saxons (probably Angles) came into this area (likely the 6th century) but before the Danes arrived in the late 9th century. Whether or not any of those other villages/hamlets existed before the settlement called Sheffield was founded is unknown, and how soon after it was founded that settlement gained the name Sheffield is also unknown (I think that the Domesday Book is the earliest surviving printed use of the word).

So, to answer your specific questions, the lead gives 'the second half of the 1st millennium AD' as the founding of the settlement called Sheffield—this is my slightly less specific way of saying 6th–9th centuries because at that point we have not yet qualified the use of those dates. As for what the Romans called this area, I don't think that this is known... I don't think anyone even knows what the Roman fort at Templeborough was called (the best suggestion that I have read is Ad Fines).

• • The last sentence in the lead, maybe replace 'staff' with 'workers' or 'personnel' - I just don't normally think of steelworks as places that have 'staff'.

Done — I changed staff to people

• • Could have more explanation of the reason and significance of the stone circles, as well as size estimates. ('Large and small' doesn't really give the reader any scale.)

I think that what we have is probably the best that we can do without going into the realm of original research. As I don't have access to any detailed research on the stone circles I can't further qualify 'large and small', so I have removed that wording.

• • '...the Pennine tribe called the Brigantes' - link or explain Pennine.

Done

• • 'it is unlikely that the settlement that grew into Sheffield existed at this time.' - as in, it was not continuously populated?

see my answer to your first question above.

• • 'Addy (1888)[16]' - this is kind of awkward reference syntax. If there's a reason we should see Addy's name in the text (noted scholar studying the region?), then that should be explained; otherwise it can probably be left to the footnote, keeping only the year in the text.

Done — I used Addy's name to avoid introducing any weasel-like terms. Addy is well known within the realm of Sheffield history, but I'm not sure how well known he is beyond that. I have changed the sentence to 'Sheffield historian S.O. Addy...'

• • 'a son, who died without issue.' - not sure what that means. Without an heir? In the same paragraph, who's Roger de Builli and is it important that William had his land as well as de Busli's? I feel like I'm missing an important fact here.

Done I've been reading too many Victorian texts :-) It means childless, so 'without an heir' is probably a better wording. I think that the mention of 'Roger de Builli' is a mistake (Roger de Builli == Roger de Busli), so I have removed it.

• • 'In 1180 Beauchief Abbey was established 4 miles southwest of the town of Sheffield in Beauchief, which is now a suburb of the city.' - this sentence is just stuck in at the end of the Anglo-Saxon section rather contextlessly; it could use some fleshing out.

Done — I moved this sentence here when I was trying to reorganise the article to make it flow more chronologically. I think that to flesh it out further would disrupt the flow too much at that point, so I have removed it and left a link to Beauchief Abbey in the 'See also' section.

• • In the medieval section we start calling this the 'manor of Hallamshire'; the preceding section made reference to the manor of Hallam, but also discussed works that referred to it in terms recognizable as related to 'Sheffield'. Do the two sets of terms refer to different things? Is 'Hallamshire' something like 'the greater Sheffield area'?

Nobody really knows what Hallamshire is/was. In the linked Hallamshire article I have tried to flesh out a little what is meant by the term. The Domesday Book refers to Hallam and Sheffield as different manors, but then adds that Sheffield had once been part of Hallam. I believe that the earliest surviving printed use of the word as Hallamshire may be the text referred to in reference #22. Possibly it would be a good idea to say that in the article. Whilst I think that it is important to mention Hallamshire in this article, I have tried to use the term as little as possible because it is so poorly defined. This becomes difficult in the 'Mediaeval' section because it almost seems like historians use Hallamshire and Sheffield interchangeably during this period; but because I am not sure whether that is really the case, I have used whatever word my source uses, which in that section happens to be Hunter who seems to have been very attached to the term Hallamshire.

• • There could be a bit more larger political background behind the queen's imprisonment, though maybe this is too long to get into very much.

Whilst the fact of her imprisonment in Sheffielders is of note, I think that the politics that put her there is better covered by other articles. We link to the Mary I of Scotland article, which gives a fairly in-depth account of her life, imprisonment, and death.

Done I have expanded this section a little to read: In 1569 George Talbot, the sixth Earl of Shrewsbury, was given charge of Mary Queen of Scots. Mary was regarded as a threat by Elizabeth I, and had been held captive since her arrival in England in 1568.[26] Talbot brought Mary to Sheffield in 1570, and she spent most of the next 14 years imprisoned in Sheffield Castle and its dependent buildings.

• • ' replaced in some part by Georgian elegance, but also by Victorian squalor.' - likely true, but sounds a bit judgmental.

I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Whilst the editor that added this has maybe been a little effusive, it does provide a nice bridge between the mediaeval section and the industrial section so I don't want to lose it completely. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome

You could do something dull like 'much of the city was rebuilt during the Georgian and Victorian eras' and expand on it in the next section. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done — JeremyA (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• • 'The city's early success in steel production involved long working hours, in unpleasant conditions that offered little or no safety protection.' - needs a bit of rewording; cities aren't the sorts of things that work long hours or need safety protections.

Done

• • 'Dr. W. H. Hatfield, is credited with the development...' - this is a very long, comma-filled, hard to parse (because of all the parentheses and appositives), sentence.

Done — I have broken this up into smaller sentences and removed technical details that are not really necessary within this article.

• • 'The 1980s saw the worst of the run-down of Sheffield's industries (along with those of many other areas in the UK), culminating with the 1984/85 miners' strike.' - is there a word missing here? Or do you mean 'the collapse of Sheffield's industries...'?

Done — I replaced 'run-down' with 'collapse'

• • '(the original tram system was closed in 1960)' - I don't think we know at this point that there was an original tram system.

Done — I have changed this to 'an earlier tram system had closed in 1960'

• • 'highest ranking area outside London for overall wealth,' - so what are the major current industries or wealth-generating activities here, besides steel? The next sentence mentions office space, but what industries or companies are using it? Opabinia regalis 17:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph is a relatively recent addition to the article. Personally I don't like these kind of claims in articles ('X city is the whatever-ist at this or that thing'), so I am quite happy to remove this paragraph completely.

I don't like those rankings either, especially since they change constantly depending on who did the study and what year it is, but some indication of the current major industries would be useful, I think. Now it seems strange to me that this place would have such a high level of wealth. Opabinia regalis 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done -- I have noted that over 80% of the city's workforce are in the public services and financial sector. —JeremyA (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support surprisingly interesting ;) Opabinia regalis 04:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose References should be formatted to a consistent bibiliographic style, including publisher for all sources, and author and publication date when available. For example (there are others), numerous news sources do not indicate the publication date. If you aren't familiar with a consistent bibliographic style, you can see WP:CITE/ES or use the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You are correct that I should have checked that all citations use the cite family of templates. I have edited the article to correct this. —JeremyA (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Done - I have now also found all original publishers of cited out-of-print books. —JeremyA (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Struck, much better—although the cite templates aren't a panacea. I'm not sure you should have used the Work parameter instead of Publisher for websources (a difference in italics only). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. It's much better than when I last reviewed it (was it a FAC or a FARC?), but you need to get an unfamiliar copy-editor onto the job.
  • "in what would become the City of Sheffield would not occur" - can you avoid the ungainly repetition?
  • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" - something's wrong here. At the very least, upper-case M is required and the quotes should be removed. Probably "the Common Market (now the EU)" is better.
  • "urban regeneration schemes aimed to fill the economic and geographic gaps left by the shut-down of the factories". So they aimed, but did they succeed? Begs the question. What are "geographic gaps"? "Closure" better than the informal "shut-down".
  • "Although Sheffield is producing more steel per year than at any other time in its history,[2] the industry is now less noticeable, as it has become highly automated and employs far fewer people than in the past." Remove "per year" and "in the past" as redundant. Can you find a better expression than "noticeable"? What exactly does it mean here? As you drive down the main street? As you look at the stats for the city's economy? Vague. Tony 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I hope that I have fixed the issues that you raise above:

• • • "but significant growth in the number and size of settlements in what would become the City of Sheffield" -> "but significant growth in the settlements that are now incorporated into the city"
    • "European "Common market" (now European Community)" -> "European Economic Community" (I think that this was the correct official name for the organisation in the time-period that is being referred to.
    • I have completely rewritten the sentences that you critique in your final two comments. I decided to remove the claim of there being more steel production now than in the past because, although I have read this claim elsewhere, I have never seen it backed up by numbers leading me to suspect that it is a myth. My edit left me with "Starting in the late 1980s urban and economic regeneration schemes have transformed the city." —JeremyA (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I've made some substantial copy edits to the rest of the article, and I have also requested copy edits from a couple of sources. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: defiantly the best "History of City" article I have read, puts History of Birmingham, History of Manchester and History of London to shame. It's comprehensive and well written without being just a collection of factoids. A couple of minor points you may want to look at:
  • Penultimate paragraph of Early History "... and by 51 the Brigantes had submitted to the clientship of Rome ...". Is clientship really the best expression for this?
  • The first paragraph of Mediaeval Sheffield would be improved if the sources for the facts were made explicit.

Note: I created this article in May 2005 by extracting text from an over long History section of the Sheffield page, and I've edited it occasionally since. Andreww 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pretty much all of the Mediaeval Sheffield section can be sourced to Hunter and Vickers—I have added some more references to make this clearer. —JeremyA (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mendip Hills

This article has been a Good Article since August 2006. It has recently been peer reviewed (archived here) & all comments have been addressed. The article describes this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in a comprehensive way. It is well written and uses appropriate images (free where possible). It is supported by a wide range of citations and has been stable for a while, with only minor edits and additions. I did not create the article but have been working, with others, on it for the last year or so. I believe it meets the FA criteria and would welcome your comments.— Rod ^talk 10:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments Very good article, and close to FA status. I could make a few very minor improvement suggestions, but in terms of what's needed to get to FA status, I think there are just two things I'd like to see:

• A map of the Hills themselves (in addition to the location map)
• An article lead should only ever contain a summarised version of information found elsewhere in the article - in this article I can see some info which only appears (unreferenced) in the lead.

SP-KP 11:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I fully support the candidacy. It's a joy to read the article. I guess it sets guidelines how an article on a protected area should be written. There's a plethora of good articles on technical subjects, human settlements, IT issues, but very few on landscape/nature related topics. There's one, however, minor (minuscule) suggestion – I would remove the IUCN category National Park from the Geobox title. I'm not sure whether the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty real fall within this category (IMHO they're rather Category V - Protected Landscape, but I'm not an expert here). Regardless what the IUCN definition of this category is, in most countries a national park is usually the highest level of landscape protection with preserved primal ecosystems where human activities are strictly limited; so it might be a bit confusing here. – Caroig 11:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - I've added a paragraph explaining the legal status of AONBs in comaparison with National Parks - I hope this meets the comment about a statement in the lead not being supported elsewhere. I was also unsure about how to classify AONB using the IUCN definition & would be happy for this to be changed if people feel that is more appropriate. I agree with the comment that it would be useful to have a map & I have asked others for this but I do not have the knowledge & skills (or software) to do this properly.— Rod ^talk 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

As of the National Park Status, thanks for clarification but the thing is, I'm still unsure whether both UK National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be placed in the IuCN category National Park, neither do they qualify for what a national park generally is outside the UK. I put the IUCN category in the Geobox design as it was in the older Infobox Protected Area but I'm not using it myself for any Czech or Slovak protected areas. The field can simply be left empty.

As of the maps, I can think of two solutions:

• To use a satelite image from NASA World Wind which are in Public Domain (or GFDL).
• To draw the map in Inkscape. I make such maps myself for Czech and Slovak localities. I've scanned some maps which have region and protected area boundaries (and rivers, mountains, roads and settlemnts of course) and use them as a background layer for drawing the boundaries upon them. See e.g. Commons:Image:NP Veľká Fatra - location map.svg or Commons:Image:Váh River (SVK) - location and watershed.svg. One could of course add more features than just the area outlines. So if there's an online map or a map you can scan it is actually pretty easy (well, once you've learnt to use this software).
• You could also combine these two, have a satelite background map and draw the outlines on top of it. The imaps/images from Inkscape are in the vector SVG format, which is highly desirable for such purposes on Wikipedia. Both NASA World Wind and Inkscape are free software.

Response - I've removed the IUCN classification. Still working on a map.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional Support -- pending inclusion of map. Weak oppose – 1. A left-aligned image in the lead is not recommended in the WP:Mos. Similarly, image:Mendip_hills.jpg, which is also left-aligned causes a squeeze in the text. Suggest it be moved elsewhere. 2. Units are inconsistently used. In some places metric are given predominance, in other imperial. Please be consistent SI (imperial). 3. What about the residents of the area? 4. bombing decoy is a red link; no context explaination. is given here to compensate for this. 5. AD --> CE 6. Mendip Gliding Club Please unlink. 7. Like has been said above, a map is very essential. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Response1) I've moved the left aligned images 2)units addressed 3)I will add something more on villages & occupations - but I'll have to take something out as it's already LONG. 4) link removed & explanation added 5) sorry I can't find this one 6) delinked 7 still working on a map. Thanks for useful comments.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! 1. What is EX ARG VEB? 2. See under =Transport and communications= 3. For consistency, Fahrenheit equivalents req; 102 m (335-foot) -- missed this 4. Mells river --> River Mells (MoS) 5. Cheddar pink(Dianthus) -- space req 6. =Notable settlements= can be converted to prosed and renamed to =demographics= 7. Convert hyphens to dashes (800-900 mm) [&ndash;] 8. Are are more vigorous?~ =Nichalp «Talk»=

Response 1. latin inscription on ingots - changed 2. edited 3. added F units 4. changed 5. space added 6. will look at this along with population 7. I think I've done all of these 8. I've removed this complex sentance. — Rod ^talk 16:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The river has not been changed, and 2 conversions have been missed out. (6–8 km) & 76 m =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Response The Mells river was changed to River Mells - but has since been changed back by a local who insists this is the correct name. I've added ft to 76m & changed 6-8km - but see discussion on my talk pages about putting UK units ie miles before KM as a UK article.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For the River naming, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming where some UK-specific information is given. As per the MoS, only articles relating to the United States have imperial before metric. If the latter has to be preferred, it needs to be debated on the MoS talk pages before coming into effect. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

For units within the text you can use these templates: {{Unit length}} and {{Unit area}}. Examples:

• {{Unit length|mi|25}} gives: 25 mi (40 km)
• {{Unit length|ft|25}} gives: 25 ft (8 m)
• {{Unit length|m|25.25|2}} gives: 25.25 m (82.84 ft) (the third parameter sets the rounding precision of the conversion)
• {{Unit area|sqmi|25}} gives: 25 mi² (65 km²)
• {{Unit area|ha|25}} gives:

There exist more conversion templates, they are even better in some aspects, e.g. {{Convert}}. Image:Mendip_hills.jpg can be put to the Geobox, in the image parameter, I'd suggest switching off (erasing) map_first then.

Response - thanks I've started playing with these.— Rod ^talk 15:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'd like to see a climate graph in the climate section, if enough information to create one is available. -Malkinann 02:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - I don't think there is enough data available to do this - but could you point me to an example of one & I will take a look?— Rod ^talk 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nominators Update I have done my best to address the comments above and I think the objections have largely been met (with the exception of a climate graph). A topographic map of the hills has been added (thanks to User:SFC9394. Another map showing settlements, & key features has been offered by the AONB authorites, and they are currently checking copyright issues etc. I hope this now meets the FA criteria, but if you have any further worries please let me know. — Rod ^talk 07:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Another user suggested moving all images to the right side of the article, however in my browser there is alot of white space. DNA, Frog, Chew Valley, and many (if not most) others use some left side images to stop this. I would strongly urge that some left sided images are used for spacial harmonics. Jhamez84 13:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - exploring the Wikipedia:Manual of Style further. In the section on images there appear to be 2 key points: # When using multiple images in the same article, they can be staggered right-and-left & # Generally, right-alignment is preferred to left- or center-alignment. Therefore it appears it is OK to have left aligned & if you'd like to do this it would be fine by me. — Rod ^talk 18:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, publishers should be identified on all footnotes/references, in addition to author and publication date when available, in a consistent bibliographic style. You can find samples at WP:CITE/ES, or use the cite templates if you aren't familiar with a bibliographic citation style. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Response - Thank you for your comment. I am familiar with the cite templates and have rechecked. The only error/absent details I could find was on the Barrington ref which I've now corrected. Are there others you feel need revision?— Rod ^talk 07:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's a good article, except that there's way too much linking of dictionary terms ("caves", "grass", etc). Why is there an en dash in "Anglo-Saxon"? Tony 23:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Response The link to caves in the geology section takes you to Caves of the Mendip Hills which is very specifically about the area. I have removed the link to grass in this section and the second link to lead. I have removed a link to caves in the history section. I have removed a link to caving in the Caving and cave diving section as it is already in the lead for Sport, leisure and tourism. I have changed the hyphen in Anglo-Saxon within the Etymology section. Are there any other area which you still feel are over-linking to dictionary terms?— Rod ^talk 09:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Holden VE Commodore

former fac

After extensive editing, tweaking and inclusion of additional information I have decided to re-nominate this article for FAC. This current GA article follows all the FA criteria and I feel that the article is worthy of that status. OSX 07:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a little cleanup on the article already (gratuitous over-linking of years, odd missing nbsp;'s, etc).

Other reviewers please note: The article is written in Australian English.

My remaining concerns are:

• The first thing that strikes me upon reading this article is that it is unnecessarily wordy. For example, in the intro: Considerable concern and question has also been put forward regarding the absence of air conditioning on the base model. This coupled with the inclusion of a space-saver spare tyre has seen the car criticised over its effectiveness in remote outback regions. - this could mose succinctly say There has been criticism over the base model's lack of air conditioning and (in outback regions) over the use of a space saver tyre....OK my version could use some improvement too - I'm no English major. But in general, try to follow the advice in User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a#Eliminating redundancy and definitely do the exercises in here and apply what you learn to every sentence of the article.
• Someone is going to criticise you on the number of 'fair use' images (there are four in the article right now) - so I guess that might as well be me. I can see that they have been carefully justified and such - but it is a lot for an FA. Could you really not get a closeup of the car's badge as a free image? Does a CAD diagram of the functional interior really do something that a photo of the actual interior could not achieve? When you look at each of these four photos with that critical eye, I think some of them could easily be replaced. The picture of the artist's rendering and the guy working on the clay model are great though so please don't read my comments as "you must get rid of all fair use images" - that is most definitely not what I'm saying.
• Translation of units into imperial units starts out OK at the top of the article - but fatigue evidently settled in later on so things like the fuel economy figures are only in metric units. American readers have no feel at all for liters-per-100km numbers - they need to see miles-per-US-gallon. Yes, it's a pain - but for an FA, it's a "must have" thing. So go through and provide conversions of ALL of your units.
• The density of wikilinks drops as you go down the article - and I start finding more and more unlinked terms as you read through the article. If nobody else gets there first, I'll try and fix some of them when I have time.
• I would have liked to see some books in the list of references. I understand that this is a fairly recent car and it's quite possible that no books have been written that say much about it yet - but an over-reliance on web-site references is often considered a 'red flag' by FAC reviewers.

SteveBaker 13:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done I have gone over the whole article and removed any cases of redundancy words that I could find, as well as rewording several sentences throughout the article. I have also removed the fair-use image of the transmission CAD rendering, but I feel that the image of the V-Series logo can remain as it is classified under the logo tag. Unit conversions have also been included, although at the expense of style.

One of the most difficult tasks I found was the inclusion of more wikilinks. I am not overly keen on over-linking, nor I am a fan of linking terms multiple times. I have included many more links throughout the article, but I don't see the need for any more. Finally in response to your concern over the lack of book references, I am not aware of any book(s) published about the car. Instead a journal dealing exclusively with the car is cited throughout heavily throughout the article. The journal was also used as the basis for much of the article's content, with other sources being used to back up claims and to provide further information. OSX 06:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed three of my complaints (see strikeouts above) - but there are still fair use images that don't need to be there - and the article is still unnecessarily wordy - so I won't switch to a 'support' right now. Sorry. SteveBaker 15:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Article is very well written, and well referenced. The head image could be better, but I am still in support. Karrmann 23:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: All of my issues from above seem to have been taken care of. IMHO, this article is now worthy of the teeny-tiny gold star. SteveBaker 14:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support: Since all the issues have been fixed I will support the article too. OSX 04:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose None of the footnotes identify publication date or author on news sources, although most of them have those. You can find examples of how to correctly expand your footnotes at WP:CITE/ES, or you could consider the cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done The references now include information regarding the author and publication date. Although a small number of the references did not contain this information, the majority did. OSX 08:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a. There's a certain looseness of expression that detracts from the authority our readers expect in FAs. A cursory look at just the lead yielded a density of problems that suggests that a thorough copy-edit throughout is required:
  • "With Opel deciding to discontinue the Opel Omega in 2003, Holden had no choice but to go with a clean-sheet approach." The first clause is ungrammatical. Try "Because Opel had decided ..."; "to go with" is too informal for this register. What is a "clean-sheet approach"? We're not writing to experts.
• "Engines and transmissions are for the most part carry-overs from the previous VZ model, with the exception of a new 6-speed automatic transmission offered as an option on selected trim levels." Single-sentence paragraph is a little disjointed in the lead. Would be nice to orient us properly at the start: "The engines and transmissions of the VE are, for the most part, carry-overs ...". Consider spelling out "six", since it's a single-digit number.
• "Prior to the release ..." - won't plain "Before" do?
• "Holden will instead manufacture two generations of Commodores alongside one another" - wouldn't it be less clumsy to say: "Holden will instead manufacture two parallel generations of Commodores"? Tony 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done Your suggested changes to the article have now been implemented, as well as a couple of others that I spotted. I will do my best over the coming days to find more examples. OSX 06:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I can see a few errors that need sorted:

• "Fuel economy figures for the base 180 kilowatt (241 hp) variants show a rather small 0.1 L/100 km (2352 mpg U.S.) decrease over the previous generation of Alloytec engines". (!)
• "Build quality and refinement played a substantial role in the development of the VE model. The interior quality, when compared to previous generations has benefited dramatically from this additional emphasis." Given the current FAC fashion for demanding citations for everything, I'd imagine a claim like this, one of the "most contentious" in the article (i.e. Holden haters will deny it's true), should be referenced. A couple of reviews from major magazines which mention the improvement is all that's needed.
• "Smaller panel gaps are just some of the ways that Holden have developed the VE to pitch it against the European competitors." Smaller panel gaps are just one of the ways.
• "Bosch Electronic Stability Program (ESP®) 8.0 system" Argh. Kill that little registered trademark sign please, as per WP:MOSTM. --DeLarge 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

• Done All of these issues have now been resolved. OSX 21:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you're not done. The most important point is the first one, where there's a blatant arithmetic error of gigantic proportions. I presume you used some kind of automated script to do the calculation and didn't copyedit afterwards? I've put it in bold text.

Looking more closely at the article (last night's comments were after a cursory look), I can see other issues, mostly to do with criteria 1...

• "History of development" starts with the laying down of a clean sheet design, and in the first paragraph repeats what the lead has mentioned, that the car is Holden's first "all-new" Commodore. So far so good. But then the second paragraph suddenly switches back to before the decision. Should they develop a new car or use an existing GM platform? We already know, you just told us what they decided.
• The last paragraph of this section, which started in 2000, describes how by 2003 Holden were working on quality issues like panel gaps. But then we go to "Design", which jumps back to 1999, and again brings up the "are we doing an all-new car" dilemma for a third time. And then in the next section, "Innovations", we're back to describing the panel gaps all over again. i think these two sections need rewritten, and possibly re-ordered.
• The description of the car as "all-new", which is a common theme in the article, conflicts with the lead's comment that the engines/transmissions (which aren't even of Australian origin) are carryovers. This might be a language issue, though; I don't know what "all-new" means down under.
• "The baseline Omega is priced from AU$34,490, a mere AU$800 over its predecessor’s entry-level equivalent." $800 is a 2.3% increase, more than the Australian inflation rate. I've seen cars introduced which were cheaper than their predecessors (e.g. the latest Honda Civic, in the UK at least), so "mere" seems a bit of a subjective call. --DeLarge 16:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verbascum thapsus

I was the one who created this article over two years ago. Over the moth of November and December of last, however, I revisited and completely rewrote the article. I've been making the occasional edit ever since, but today I finished various odds and ends and I now feel it is ready to be submitted here for review. It is of course a self nomination. Circeus 23:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. "Distribution and naturalization" seems to put too much emphasis on introduction and spread in North America at the expense of describing the introduction in South America and (possibly) variations by region in areas where the plant is native. Also, a map showing the worldwide distribution (with perhaps a separate color for native areas) would be useful. —Cuiviénen 00:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You put the finger on two thing that, despite extensive search in sources available to me, I was not able to add anything about. As far as I can tell, only the US introduction seem to have been documented, partly because it is the oldest, too, it is the best so. User:MPF, IIRC, was the one that located the data on subspecies, but I haven't been able to find any more details about variations myself. Circeus 01:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I left a bunch of minor style comments on the talk page about a month ago, most of which haven't been addressed yet. I'll to do some more reviewing soon. --NoahElhardt 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I think It was during a time where my watchlist checking was patchy. I'll look at these. Circeus 15:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've copied below Noah's comments and my answers, for reference:

Support - The article covers all of the important aspects of the plant that I would expect to see in an article, is thorough, and is very well cited. --NoahElhardt 01:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I couldn't knock this page for detail and information, but I didn't find it a lucid read. Small language errors crop up here and there and require a copy-edit, though I can probably sort those myself. The problem that leaps out at me the most is the over-use of reference tags, which in places makes the article semi-unreadable, in my opinion. Take this part:

V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America,^[1][2] but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK.^[3][4] Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly,"^[5] "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein,"^[4][4] "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket,"^[2][3][6][7] and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).

Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod."^{[8][3][2][9][10]} The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.^[11]

The specific epithet thapsus was first used by Theophrastus (as θάψος, "thapsos")^[12] for an unspecified herb from the Ancient Greek settlement of Thapsos, near modern Syracuse, Sicily,^[13][12] though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus.^[14]

<note: my example above has been improved by circeus so that it no longer fully relates to the following comment qp10qp 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)> Surely all this tagging isn't necessary. The edit-page version of this is a nightmare to try and copy-edit (and it needs a copy-edit, for phrases such as ""Dock" being appliable to any broad-leaved plant" or "though it is often assimilated to the ancient Tunisian city of Thapsus"). Surely a better approach here would be to cite a page or page range of a book or books which give all the various names and leave it at that (something like: Mabey, 329-40; Grieve, 75-84, or whatever, at the end of the section), rather than cite for every single name in this intrusive fashion. qp10qp 17:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the Watts references, they are apreadacross the entire book (at "Rod", "staff," "Mullein" and "Velvet"), so the best I can do is move the refs for every group at the end of the paragraph, I'm afraid. How does it look now?

Grieve cannot be given a page number because I didn't look up the book: it is available in its entirety online. It seemed better to cite it as a book and link the relevant part instead.Circeus 17:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I combined the Watts references together too.Circeus 17:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

How about (put "ref" instead of "noref"):

V. thapsus is known by a variety of names. "Common mullein" is the usual name in North America, but "Great Mullein" is the one used in the UK. Vernacular names include innumerable references to the plant's hairiness: "Woolly," "Velvet" or "Blanket Mullein," "Beggar's," "Moses'," "Poor Man's," "Our Lady's" or "Old Man's Blanket," and so on ("Flannel" is another generic name).<noref>Niering, 798; Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 108, 369, 633-634; Brako, 189.</noref>

Some names refer to the plant's size and shape: "Shepherd's Club(s)" or "Staff," "Aaron's Rod" (a name it shares with a number of other plants with tall, yellow inflorescences), and a plethora of other "X's Staff" and "X's Rod." The plant is still called "Velvet" or "Mullein Dock"—"Dock" is a British name applied to any broad-leaved plant.<noref>Rickett, 389; Grieve, Mullein, Great; Watts, 302, 634, 774-775, 819-820, 866.</noref>

That's what I meant by combining refs, rather than just grouping tags together. (If you wanted to tell the reader precisely which name came from which book, you could do it in the notes: just list the names before the particular pages.)

qp10qp 18:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Object - 1a. Bloopers like this at the top don't augur well:

• "It grows in a wide variety of habitats, but favors well-lit disturbed soils the most, which it can invades rapidly thanks to its long-lived seeds." Remove "the most". "Invades"? The logic of why long-lived seeds allow this is unclear, and probably should be in the lead.

And more:

• "Common Mullein is a weedy, but rarely competitive species." Logic problem: why "but"?
• "it hosts many insects that can be harmful to other plants, such as the tarnished plant bug." Word order could be kinder to our readers - the tarnished plant bug is not another plant.
• "Although individuals are easy to destroy by hand, populations are difficult to destroy permanently." Another contrast that brings up logical problems; why is manual destruction pitted against permanence?
• "It is especially recommended for coughs and related problems, but also used in topical applications against a variety of skin problems. The plant was also used to make dyes and torches." More contrast/logic issues. Why "but"? Why "was also", and what are "torches" (means a number of things in English)?

Needs a good run-throught by a copy-editor before promotion. Tony 21:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You expect the lead to explain all the subtleties covered in the body of the article. There are no logic problem whatsoever (although I did replace "competitive" with "invasive").

• "weedy, but not competitive" is a reaction to the fact that weeds are typically highly competitive or invasive (e.g. Purple loosestrife, Dandelion, Pilosella aurantiaca)
• Contrasting individuals and permanence reflects that one seeking to eliminate a species from a location does hope to do so permanently.
• The third case is a limitation. It's not only used for breathing ailments ("Most tigers are orange and black, but the Siberia Tiger is white and black"...)

Circeus 22:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Goebbels

A very nice article recently rewritten, well referenced, written and formed as far as I can tell. Covers Goebbels comprehensively. I saw few praises and suggestions for FAC on the talk page and decided to take this up.

• Nomination and Support --Pudeo (Talk) 23:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose For starters, the article should have plenty more images and a section on Goebbels in popular culture. Many movies have featured him and he was often parodied in much propaganda during the war. --128.253.240.31 00:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Added one image more. --Pudeo (Talk) 00:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture is embarrassing to FAs. I'd prefer it wasn't there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Keep those pop culture references out of there. The article is at 71k already and we're probably going to generate an extra talkpage archive for just for the discussion about Gobbles. Peter ^Isotalo 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Request - please reference the Joseph_Goebbels#Defeat_and_Death pargraph starting "on april 30". Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Itsy-bitsy, teeny-weeny lead. A good two paragraphs can't be that hard to write. Peter ^Isotalo 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I made a first attempt at one, though I'm not terribly familiar with Goebbels' life and career. Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Follow-up I've been reading the article a lot closer. It's of really high quality, but it has a few problems that need to be addressed before it can be promoted. There are way too many quotes from the authors of the sources that need to be integrated with the article. It could also probably use some trimming to get the length down a bit, and there are a few citations that are repeated a bit too frequently. I'm going to put in some work of my own on this over the next few days. Peter ^Isotalo 15:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a controversial area and such an article requires very, very thorough citations and extreme care. For example, immediately after the sentence where Goebbels says that the process of wiping out the Jewish race is of vast importance, the next sentence says that Goebbels kept his grip on reality. I don't think many people would agree that murdering many millions of people is keeping a grip on reality. DrKiernan 14:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks rather well-cited to me... Just please try not to push anyone into breaking any kind of citation record. I would certainly not want an article about such a prominent, if controversial, figure be the first FA to break 200-footnote limit. Let's try to focus on citing statements that are actually controversial for something other than being purely heinous. Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • After one week, I am still opposed. Some paragraphs have no citations at all, and there are still sentences for which I would like to see references: e.g. (just in the first two paragraphs) "his height (1.65 m; 5 ft 5 in), exposed him to ridicule and humiliation"; "student fraternities ... were dominated by extreme right-wing politics" DrKiernan 16:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I know that you have citations, but what about a reference section, or having a full bibliography in the same section? I know that there may be some people interested in purchasing the book, or checking it if they already have it, and full bibliographical information would be nice. JonCatalan 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I started the reference section. I couldn't be entirely sure about the exact editions, but I picked whichever ISBN numbers that seemed the most appropriate. If someone has a quip concerning the page numbers being from the wrong edition, it'll be easy to fix. Peter ^Isotalo 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support Disagree that the article must have more images(tough more would be nice it is certainly not required), popular references can also be excluded. The level of citations seem thorough enough. The inclusion of a separate bibliography section removed my pet complaint. The information is well presented, and seems complete. Abel29a 10:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This is a good article, but I think there are a number of issues that need adressing before making it a featured article.

• It is much too long and needs condensing.
• The main infobox listing him as German chancellor is misleading, even if he was chancellor for a day. Would it not be better to describe him as propaganda minister, with a note that he was chancellor very briefly? The same applies to the box at the bottom of the article.
• Speculation on motivation and emotional state (psychology) should mostly be removed. Some could be presented as opinion. Even if it is substantiated, it is not all relevant to an encyclopedic article.
• There are other comments that may be good for readability but are nevertheless POV, e.g. "surprising degree of success [with women]". Actually, why should it be surprising that a man with such power, intellect, and persuasive powers, should be "successful" with women.
• information about the conduct of the war, relations between Hitler's "lieutenants", etc. that is not directly relevant to Goebbels or is not encyclopedic in nature could be condensed.
• Although there are a lot of citations, because of the length of the article there is still a lot of information that is not backed up by citations:
• In my opinion, many of the direct quotes should be removed or relegated to footnotes.
• The redlink should be removed (possibly by creating an article).
• I saw no mention of his half-Jewish girl-friend/fiancée (who is mentioned in other sources).
• His paper Der Angriff possible deserves more prominence. --Boson 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support I'll admit I haven't read it quite closely enough to comment on the type of thing as individual occasions of poor phrasing or POV statements, but on the whole the article looks quite thorough, well-cited, and well-written. I would, however, second the notion that the infobox should label him as "Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda" not as Chancellor, a post which he held for only one day, and only as a result of the confusion of Hitler's death and the very much impending end of the war. LordAmeth 10:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support Looks good, but I agree that rewriting the infobox for his main job as information/propaganda minister would be a good idea. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object Still a good article, but now it's starting to become a size problem, and some other issues still need to be addressed:
  • Article was at 71k when it was nominated and has now grown to 78. Excluding infoboxes, templates and references (but not the footnotes, unless someone wants to tell me they're not relevant to begin with), it's still just 78k. Lack of focus usually starts at around at 50k, and at 60k it's usually past encyclopedic.
  • There are still full quotes from Fest in the article which don't seem motivated. Either they should be worked into the prose or, if they're very speculative and exclusive to the author, removed entirely.
  • Overall, the article has a lot of quotes from Goebbels, some of them on the long side. It doesn't seem quite necessary to include them all. Also, remove the "he wrote" and "he said" from those passages and work them into the prose preceding them; they just look awkward and are mere artifacts of the sources. I'm pretty sure the amount of quotes are partly responsible for the size, not to mention the occasional instance of overzealous citation, the use of Fest p. 90 being the most obvious example.
  • Ameth and L&McC make a good point; "Chancellor of Germany" in the infobox is not relevant.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. 54KB of prose surpasses guidelines at WP:LENGTH, footnotes should be expanded to a consistent biblio style (example, blue link only at Wahlen in der Weimarer Republik website ), and publishers are not indicated on book references. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What is "consistent biblio style" and how does one expand to it? And why not add the publishers yourself? It's not a really a requirement... Peter ^Isotalo 08:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammon

The article has improved tremendously since its original FA nomination, having been through a couple of peer reviews and a GA review since then. All of the concerns in the original FAC have been addressed, and the article is now more well-referenced and balanced than it has ever been. It has a good selection of images, the editing disputes of a few months ago appear to be resolved, and I've given it the best copyedit I can come up with, so I believe it is time to submit it for FA. —ptk✰fgs 21:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- looks good to me. Goldfritha 02:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There appears to be over use of bolding. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Jay32183 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe I've addressed this. Better? —ptk✰fgs 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, that problem has been fixed. I'll review the article further, the bolding really just jumped out at me. Jay32183 18:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

*Comment Under the heading International competition, shouldn't that be "21st century", not "20th century"? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Yes, it should. And now it is. Thanks! —ptk✰fgs 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The prose is OK, though some of the paras short but I don't see a way around this really. However, this sentence in the lead is a bit clunky - "The game is essentially a race, and luck plays a measurable role, but backgammon offers a significant scope for strategy." Needs some restructuring. I can do it if you want. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 22:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken a shot at it, but any suggestions would be welcome. —ptk✰fgs 07:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, pretty good, may support later.Support --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd mention that it, or its ancestors, date back pretty far in the lead, that's important.
  • automatic doubles ... the Jacoby Rule is still in effect. - Meaning what, that a gammon will count double under Jacoby after automatic doubling or that it won't unless manual doubling is also called? Is automatic doubling only valid if the Jacoby rule is also used, or are they independent? Clarify. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • variants - they all seem to be cited to an exhaustive rules site, why were these specific ones chosen out of the "many"? Preferable if you cite at least one source each showing that these variants are somehow more popular than all the others made up in school one day.
  • doubling cube - I seem to recall the creator of the cube made the statement that in a perfect game there would be one double offered, and it would be declined, and that later a mathematician showed that was not correct. Notable bit of trivia, that doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article. Or am I hallucinating? :-) Even if I am, you should probably mumble a sentence about it generally being logical to double if you think you are >50% likely to win, and logical to accept if you think you are >33% likely to win, and why.
  • Monte Carlo - link first mention, not second

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • I'd mention that it, or its ancestors, date back pretty far in the lead, that's important.
    • There was a concern a while back that this article contradicted go (board game), in that both were stating that their topics were the oldest game in the world. If I remember clearly, we simply ditched that, thinking that it was not terribly important, not wanting to get into a war over the differences between tabula and modern backgammon versus those between ancient and modern go. At any rate, I've added a phrase to the end of the first paragraph in the lead indicating that the tables family is among the oldest known.
      • automatic doubles ... the Jacoby Rule is still in effect. - Meaning what, that a gammon will count double under Jacoby after automatic doubling or that it won't unless manual doubling is also called? Is automatic doubling only valid if the Jacoby rule is also used, or are they independent? Clarify.
    • Since most money play is subject to negotiation and house rules anyway, I've cut the last part of that paragraph as it's not particularly relevant unless we're trying to produce a comprehensive text on the rules of backgammon, which we're not.
      • variants - they all seem to be cited to an exhaustive rules site, why were these specific ones chosen out of the "many"? Preferable if you cite at least one source each showing that these variants are somehow more popular than all the others made up in school one day.
    • Backgammon Galore seems to include pretty much anything played on a backgammon board as a variant of backgammon. This is neither accurate enough nor precise enough for our purposes, but it serves their backgammon-oriented audience well. I made the selection in this article somewhat arbitrarily, selecting only those variants which had a close resemblance to backgammon and some sort of respectable history, after the article's second peer review. If it would be better to simply move these back over to tables (board game), where they came from, I'd have no objection to that. Any suggestion here would be welcome.
      • doubling cube - I seem to recall the creator of the cube made the statement that in a perfect game there would be one double offered, and it would be declined, and that later a mathematician showed that was not correct. Notable bit of trivia, that doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article. Or am I hallucinating? :-) Even if I am, you should probably mumble a sentence about it generally being logical to double if you think you are >50% likely to win, and logical to accept if you think you are >33% likely to win, and why.
    • I think this is a common misconception about the cube, in that some folks believe the leader always has an incentive to double and the trailer always to drop. I don't recall ever reading a passage about this from an authority on the game, and certainly not from the inventor of the cube, who remains unknown. What do you think about adding a short paragraph about this to the strategy section? There is certainly a citation available to Magriel or Robertie. For what it's worth, the gammonless and cubeless take point for the trailer is about 25%, and the doubling point for the leader is more difficult to pin down.
      • Monte Carlo - link first mention, not second
    • I've addressed this in a recent edit. Thank you for your input! —ptk✰fgs 02:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lets see:

• Sole years and centuries shouldn't be linked.
• The "Strategy" section contains a list of game terms, please convert it to a full-blown paragraph with encyclopedic commentary (e.g. "In addition to this one, a few other strategies may be used as well, including...").
• Stubby paragraphs should either be expanded or merged.
• The variants in the "Variants" section should be converted to table form, with names and explanations, instead of a stubby section for each variant.
• Avoid time expressions for the present (e.g. "currently").
• Bolding shouldn't be used anywhere besides the primary article's subject. Michaelas10 (Talk) 19:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The last is not strictly true, see MOS:BOLD. Apparently bold can be used for definitions. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your input.

*Sole years and centuries shouldn't be linked.

I believe I've removed all of the wikilinked dates and centuries from the article text. There are, of course, some bare years which are linked inside <ref> tags which are needed to permit users' date preferences to work.

*The "Strategy" section contains a list of game terms, please convert it to a full-blown paragraph with encyclopedic commentary (e.g. "In addition to this one, a few other strategies may be used as well, including...").

I am not sure it would be appropriate to add further detail on strategy to this article, as Wikipedia should not be a how-to guide.

*Stubby paragraphs should either be expanded or merged.

*The variants in the "Variants" section should be converted to table form, with names and explanations, instead of a stubby section for each variant.

I think the biggest problem with this section was an excessive use of subheadings and the {{main}}template. I've reformatted it as a series of paragraphs; please take a look and see if it works better now.

*Avoid time expressions for the present (e.g. "currently").

I caught one use of this at the end of the History section and I've modified it to avoid this problem.

*Bolding shouldn't be used anywhere besides the primary article's subject.

As AnonEMouse notes above, WP:MOSBOLD specifies that bold formatting should be used for lists of specialized terms. There was quite a bit of excessive bold text in the article before, but I believe that what is there now is appropriate. —ptk✰fgs 01:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed her own to their own. Stop reverting. What idiot believes women are the only ones playing backgammon. - icarriere 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

First off, your use of "there" was grammatically incorrect (I reverted it) then your use of "their" (Is INCONSISTENT with the rest of the article), and then the use of "his/her" is still inconsistent to the rest of the article. If you want consistency you will want to change ALL references to "his" and "her", but before you consider that I highly recommend you review the Talk:Backgammon page for the topic "They/their as a singular". Before you make any changes please discuss your rationale with the rest of us, and if there is consensus modify the entire article mpetch 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Footnote formatting is inconsistent, and a review for reliability of sourcing is in order. There must be numerous reputable books to which this article can be cited; this sample source used relies on a Usenet post, which is not a reliable source. Backgammon galore appears to be a personal website, which relies on Usenet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I have addressed these concerns in a recent edit.[21] I've used the {{cite ...}} templates for all of the sources in the article, which should go a long way toward presenting a more consistent citation style. I've removed a number of sources which didn't appear to be reliable.

Backgammon Galore, despite being self-published, is probably an example of when we actually could use this kind of source, at least for the core rules. Unfortunately, its outstanding coverage of the rules is much more authoritative than a lot of the other content on the site, which itself cites usenet posts, as you've noted above. Besides the two variants, and a short paragraph about automatic doubles (which is a "house rule", anyway), the only things cited to Backgammon Galore were also cited to Hoyle and Robertie. I went ahead and removed all of the references to Backgammon Galore, as well as any text that was solely supported by it.

I wish I could say that the same caliber of sources were available for backgammon as they are for chess, but what we have now is probably the best we can do. Scholarly coverage of backgammon is pretty scarce, and I've pretty much cleaned out the bound collections and microforms at my university library, as well as JSTOR, and everything I could find available through interlibrary loan.—ptk✰fgs 03:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I did discover that in removing the Backgammon Galore citations, a few things in the "Doubling cube" section became uncited. I've found supporting material in Robertie and updated those citations. I've also added ISBNs for all of the books. Please let me know if there's more I've missed. —ptk✰fgs 04:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - 1a: glaring errors of prose, and logical problems here and there. Here are examples from the lead.
  • "but most share the same common elements" - spot the redundant pair of words.
  • "one of the oldest classes of board games" - most experts would say to use singular "game" here.
  • "Although the game is essentially a race, backgammon offers a significant scope for strategy." Just why racing and using strategy should not normally be found together is unclear.
  • Why "his or her", then just "his"? Initial bow to non-sexist language enough? Better to pluralise "players/their" to circumvent the problem.

Then, further:

• • "The ancient Romans played a number of games with remarkable similarities to backgammon." Better: "of remarkable similarity".
  • "Not much specific text about the gameplay has survived." More encyclopedic: "Little specific ...".
  • "twelve" then "12": usually only single-digit numbers are spelt out, unless sentence-initial. The rules are a dog's breakfast in this respect. Better decide on a consistent style.
  • Caption to the board: it's a real sentence, unlike most captions, so it needs a final period.

This is a good article, but should be fixed throughout before promotion.

I will make a pass over these later on. The unfortunate story behind "his or her" is that neither "his" nor "her" survives there long before it's altered to "player"/"their" or something else terrible. There's no way we'll ever get away with using plural pronouns throughout the article, as we need to refer to exactly one of the two players far too often. I guess I'll put it back the way it was, to "her". Of course, I will be dead long before everyone is satisfied with the selection of pronouns in that sentence. —ptk✰fgs

I think the problem with "his or her" isn't that it is used, but that it isn't used in every instance of a singular pronoun. Whatever method you chose, you need to use it consistently. Jay32183 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll need to go over the rest of the article later tonight, but I believe I've addressed the problems you identified above. I've left "twelve" spelled out in only one instance, where it is used in a translation from Latin. As for the "classes of..." phrase, I find a lot of support in the OED for "class(es) of [plural]" and none for "class(es) of [singular]", so I still prefer that sentence as it is. Tables, cross and circle, mancala, and so forth are all categories containing numerous games, so I think it is an appropriate use here. —ptk✰fgs 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I found some very useful copyediting guides on your user page, and I've done my best to make sentences in the article clearer and more straightforward (the bulk of my changes are in this diff: [22]). If you have a chance to look over it again, I would welcome your input. —ptk✰fgs 04:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it took me a few hours, but I've just realized what you meant by "the rules"... not referring to the formatting rules for numbers, but to the rules section of the article. I've tried to follow the style used in the backgammon literature here, which would never refer to the "two-point", "five-five" or a "roll a three". The rules section is consistent in its use of numerals for single-digit numbers where that is the convention: "the 2-point", "roll a 3" and "roll 5-5" are the accepted notation style in this topic area. —ptk✰fgs 05:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freak Out!

Self-nomination. I did a lot of work on this article to bring it from its original state to its current level of quality. I think that I've done a very good job with it. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC))
• Support. Very well written, clearly there's enough cites, music samples, chart info, track listing are all here. This is a quality example of a FA-status album. Good job! Anthony Hit me up... 19:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is potential for a good article here, and I enjoyed reading it, but a lot of work needed would be needed to bring it to FA standard:

• Lead contains six short sentences (see WP:LEAD). Three is more usual, four is acceptable if topic requires a lenghty introduction.
• Many stubby one statement sentances through out the article.
• Block quotes squeezed between short paragraphs.
• Audio file would benefit from a caption.
• The section "Response" is underdeveloped and lacks insight, considering so much has been written about the album by so many. The fact that Gronening bought his copy "from the record department of a grocery store" is wholly trivial and irrelevant.
• The inline cite in the first sentence is unnecessary.
• Cites based on interview with Zappa should credit the interviewer as author, not the interviewee.
• A number of statments are double cited. Why is this, are they paticularly controversial?
• Needs a thorough copy edit:

• "debut double album" - The word debut here is confusing, why not just 'first'.
• "Wilson signed The Mothers...to a record deal on the pretense that they were a white blues band" - Change 'on the pretense' to 'in the belief' - have different meanings.
• "expanded their music to a wide range of original material" - with a wide, or to include.
• "initial guitar player Elliot Ingber" - 'initial' here is awkward, plus it is used again in the following sentence.
• "Although the album was poorly-received when it was initially released in the United States, it was a success in Europe, and gained a cult following in America." - drop 'it was', switch 'initally' to first. Why is the order of the sentence USA, Europe, USA.
• "The album also influenced" - 'also' is redundant.
• Why is audio documentary in double quotes.
• The factoid about the ale is amusing, but too trivial for the lead.
• These are all taken from the lead, can you please check the remainder of the article for similar issues. Ceoil 22:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've taken care of some of the issues you have brought up. Please take a look at the current revision and re-review. (Ibaranoff24 22:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

• The entire text, as I've mentioned, needs revision: "The first song recorded for the album was "Any Way The Wind Blows." The second track recorded was "Who Are the Brain Police?"[2][10] ". Again, one statement sentences, double citations. A larger issue is that the current article lacks insight and context. Ceoil 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Took care of the sentence. (Ibaranoff24 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Comment: Have been following edits to the article, and my openion is that it reamins outside of the criteria. Ceoil 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Object Not what I'd call a well written article. There are simple grammatical and spelling errors throughout the article ("attented", "It was also as one"). Please make sure to copyedit the whole article, not just fix these examples. Other things at random:
  • America as a whole Occurs twice.
  • In the early 1960s, Frank Zappa met Ray Collins, who was supporting himself by working as a carpenter, and on weekends sung with a group called the Soul Giants. Last part of that sentence is ambiguous. Was it Zappa or Collins? If the latter, use parallelism, as that makes for a much less awkward sentence ("by working as a carpenter and singing...).
  • about the Watts riots Link?
  • However, in a 1968 article written for Hit Parader magazine Not seeing the contrast that would indicate a use of "however"
  • Zappa is quoted as saying Where, when, context? Why is this huge quotation plopped down here? Quotations are good to sprinkle around to add some zest to the text, but here, the first three paragraphs of Album production are dominated by quotations.
  • Nothing in Album production about when/where they recorded the album? There's Some songs, such as "Motherly Love" and "I Ain't Got No Heart" had already been recorded. But, what does that mean? Were they recorded before the Freak Out! session or something?
  • posthumous release I'm assuming posthumous refers to Zappa?
  • "Wilson was sticking his neck out..." Who said this? Context?
  • at approximately 11 minutes and 39 seconds That doesn't seem too approximate to me...seems pretty specific.
  • "...at the time, it was, you know,..." Another quotation with no context. Who said this?
  • "it would be best to bring along a Suzy Creamcheese replica who would demonstrate once and for all the veracity of such a beast." You have this in quotations, but it's not cited. Where are you taking this from?
  • neither a commercial or Neither/nor
  • When citing books, you need to give page numbers. Gzkn 01:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• All of your concerns have been addressed. Please take a look at the current revision. (Ibaranoff24 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC))
• Oppose Every image in this article is at a high resolution. Each needs to be shrunk so that the longest side is no larger than 400px and then tagged with {{subst:furd}}. ShadowHalo 04:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that this edit cannot be accomplished, as the current revisions of the images in the article are already at an appropriate low-resolution size. (Ibaranoff24 06:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
    • They most certainly are not low resolution. For Wikipedia's purposes, 696x683 (the size of the first image) is high resolution. To comply with fair use, our use of copyrighted material needs to be as little as possible and just enough to be used in articles. There's no way we need a 696x683 in an article. Plus, we can't be providing high resolution covers that people can use to produce illegal copies. ShadowHalo 06:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Done. All of the images are currently at a proper resolution. (Ibaranoff24 17:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC))
        • Image:FZ-studio-FO.jpg and Image:FO-era Mothers.jpg still need to be scaled down so that the longest side is no more than 400px. ShadowHalo 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Looks good now. ShadowHalo 01:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Support. Lucid, concise and well-sourced desription of one of rock history's important non-mainstream releases.--HJ 12:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Support. Well written article about an important album. Dan M 04:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The prose of this nomination needs scrutiny before promotion. Overall it's not badly written, but there are glitches. Here are a few examples at random.

• "poorly-received" - no hyphens after "-ly"
• "and on weekends sung with a group" - Wrong tense: "sAng"
• "said to have been made circa 1965" - Please replace the Latinism with a plain English word.
• "Freak Out! was finally released with the band's name now changed to" - spot the redundant word.
• "Featured" twice in two lines; "got" and "get" too close together up top; "released" x 2. Repetition needs to be audited. Tony 21:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I took a look at the issues you've addressed, and I've taken care of them. (Ibaranoff24 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC))
  • I've listed the article at requests for copyediting. (Ibaranoff24 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC))

• Oppose - It just doesn't do it for me. Note that this is an inactionable oppose & therefore shouldn't be counted in the end tally - just noting that the article doesn't have the X-factor needed IMHO. Thanks, Spawn Man 05:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)