Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2007

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Platform game

Self-nomination: Since November this article has been almost completely rewritten and tripled in size. It recently passed GA, and nominating for FA was suggested. While there's a definite dearth of sources on the subject of videogames that are completely reliable, particularly regarding claims of origins, and sales figures. I've avoided most discussions of sales and popularity, and reinforced claims of origins with solid dates. The information included should be pretty bulletproof at this point. Furthermore, I've made sure that it is exceptionally well rounded and as neutral as possible, covering games on all platforms, and from all regions. It also does a great deal to establish a detailed history covering lesser known (but important) titles as well as more popular games, and debunks many common misconceptions. Frogacuda 06:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I found this article to be an interesting read, but there are a few things that could improve the article:
  • Headings should be lowercase per WP:MOS. E.g. "Platformers into the present" instead of "Platformers Into the Present"
  • Get rid of the list at the bottom. The article already mentions all of the notable games and a long list doesn't belong in a FA. --Maitch 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response: I think this is a good call. Done. Frogacuda 18:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to add that the article is fairly inconsistant with capitalization. Sometimes it's "Hop and bob" and other times it's "Hop and Bob". Sometimes it's "Run and gun" and other times it's "Run and Gun". Sometimes it's "platformer" and other times it's "Platformer". --Maitch 21:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: Fixed. I was actually working on this as you posted it. Frogacuda 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Conditional support There are way too many pictures. I do sympathize that images are needed for illustration more than some articles, but still, gotta cut it down to essentials. Otherwise, looks good! 69.253.238.27 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Judgesurreal777 20:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: Is there a good frame of reference for this in Wiki's manual? The article covers a lot of territory and only offers images for the most substantial games. I worry that if I cut it down to far, the article will be more difficult follow. Also any reference for prioritizing what would be cut would be helpful. Frogacuda 21:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object: I'm more of a peer-reviewer, but every little helps, and I'll give you my personal input. As it stands I'm not sure I can support it.
  • You wikilink jumping puzzle twice in the first two paragraphs of the lead, which I don't see as necessary.
  • "The genre has been the result of a great deal of cross-polination of ideas between..." - 'cross-polination'? For one, its meaning is a little obscure to me, and secondly, I'd put that through a spellchecker as it doesn't ring true to me.
  • You misspell 'fantasy' at the end of the lead.
  • "While some of the ideas came from earlier games, they used these ideas in a new way." - this sounds a little biased and I'd consider rewording it.
  • "Space Panic, a 1980 arcade release, is sometimes credited as the first platform game[6]," - place the citation after the punctuation here.
  • "(see Comical Action Game for more info)." - some editors would object to the use of parentheses here. It doesn't bother me personally, but I think the tone is too informal regardless.
  • "It was, however, remarkably ahead of its time, and, at its best moments, a foreshadowing of what would follow." - again, this doesn't sound completely neutral, and should it remain this powerful a statement, it'll require citation.
  • "influencial" - influential.
  • "1984 smash Pac-Land." - 'smash' is probably a little too informal.
  • "with Pitfall! being the most apparent influence." - a) 'Pitfall!' probably needs italicisation, and the statement needs citation.
  • "and went on to sell over 40 million copies according to the 1999 Guinness Book of World Records." - couldn't you turn this statement into a citation?
  • "Sega attempted to ape this success with their Alex Kidd series," - 'ape'? Inappropriate tone.
  • Looking through, you need to put a full stop at the end of each sentence in the boxes beneath the pictures and screenshots.
  • I think "Second generation side-scrollers" is fatally undercited.
  • "usually involving some sort of brightly colored anthropomorphic animal that spewed movie quotes in a nasal voice." - seriously, this isn't the sort of tone which gets articles FA status. I wish it did, because it makes me titter.
  • "but 2D graphics are usually lumped in with" - tone again.
  • "as a precursor to Jumping Flash!)[24] ." - citation after punctutation.
  • "(while the developer claimed that all characters were "rendered in glorious 3D",[28] a less misleading term would be "pre-rendered")" - this is a pretty derogatory tone to take.
  • "to its predecessor, most would argue that it wasn't quite a platformer." - you're not gonna be able to pass FA with "most would argue"; you need citation or to rethink the sentiment.
  • "(a risky move at the time, as Naughty Dog was a B-grade developer at the time, hot off the heels of the abysmal bomb Way of the Warrior)" - tone.
  • I think the last paragraph in "The third dimension" needs citation, which shouldn't be too hard to come across.
  • "Some would argue that many modern 3D platformers" - I think Wikipedia calls these Weasel Words. The sentence is cited, so I'd advise you remove "would", leaving "some argue".
  • I'm not sure, but I think "See also" sections usually come after references. Don't take my word for it though. WP:MOS might tell you.

I know I just picked this thing to bits, but this is FAC and no-one's gonna cut you any slack. The article needs a complete fine-comb, taking out any "some might say"s and informal language. Content wise, there's a lot here, but some feels POV and other pieces need citation. Good luck with the whole thing, and if you can address the things I've highlighted, I'll change to a tentative support. Seegoon 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Response There is some definite informal tone, particularly the paragraph regarding attitude. There's a few of your objections I would contest, however: Cross-pollination is used figuratively, of course, but its meaning is clear, and I think it's the best way to express that thought. I don't see any reason to avoid the word "ape," either.

Also, things like "while some of these ideas came from earlier games, they used them in a new way" shouldn't come off as bias. To say otherwise would be to suppose that the very genre that the article is about doesn't exist. In fact the statement was just include to give credit to the precursor's to the genre. I'll be working on the rest during the next day. Frogacuda 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ResponseOk, I think I got all the issues you mentioned, except for the ones I addressed above that I don't find problematic. Frogacuda 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Cambodian Civil War

This article meets all criteria for FA-status.

• Nominate and Support. --Ineffable3000 21:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sorry, it's an interesting topic, but the copyediting doesn't meet the "brilliant prose" standard yet. It took a lot of concentrating and re-reading to follow along the chronology, and I'm still unclear about many items. I'm also not crazy about the "main article" tags at the beginning of almost every section, and some of those "main articles" really aren't larger discussions of the section being tagged (example: Sihanouk Trail, and Vietnam War are listed as main articles of the "background" section, yet the Sihanouk Trail isn't even mentioned in the background section and the Vietnam War only indirectly). Neil916 (Talk) 06:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The ending is a bit...sensationalist no? :-p Gzkn 08:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose I think this is a really good article and a great effort to cover a very complex topic. But I echo the point Gzkn makes about the end, and feel that a similar tone occurs in other points of the article. This gives the impression to me that I am reading an account of events from a specific point of view rather than a God's eye view. Examples of such prose include
  • “The war was over. The terrible dreams of the Khmer Rouge were about to come to fruition in the newly-proclaimed Democratic Kampuchea. The Year Zero had begun.”
  • “On 11 September, Cambodia held its first open election. Open did not mean fair however”
  • “The prince now found himself in a political bind”
  • “Besides, PAVN and the NLF would make very convenient scapegoats for Cambodia's ills,”

I think these examples would be perfectly acceptable in a journal, under a named author. But it doesn't feel right on wikipedia. These statements are "telling" rather than "showing".--Zleitzen 02:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Paul McCartney

I am nominating the Paul McCartney page because I believe it has been researched in depth, and has a plethora of citations to support that research. A group of editors have been working on it together to bring it up to the standard it has now. andreasegde 04:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support 300+ citations!!...this one could have been FA'd 200 refs ago. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 05:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The first sentence should mention something comparable to the phrase at the start of John Lennon: "who gained worldwide fame as one of the founders of The Beatles". Currently the lead section fails to mention that important fact, meaning it assumes too much of readers. This is clearly shown by the fact that the second sentence begins with "Following his departure from The Beatles"—we should not assume that a reader would know that he had been a member of the Beatles, nor even that they know what "The Beatles" is, making the second sentence a logical leap that will abandon the uninformed base this article should be directed at. Also, the fourth paragraph in the lead is only one sentence long; it can be merged into another paragraph easily.
  • Amended first graf to accommodate suggestion regarding identifying Beatles. Tvoz | talk 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I notice some style concerns in the article text. For example, dashes are used where em-dashes should be, unnecessary commas show up in odd places, and references are sometimes placed in strange locations where the text would be more readable if they were moved to the end of a sentence. Indeed, I recommend cutting down on the number of references in general; too much of a good thing is a bad thing, and when references are being cited for uncontroversial claims in a redundant fashion (e.g., the same ref used for two consecutive sentences) it makes the text difficult to read without improving its verifiability.
• I also notice some strange formating choices for the article sections. For example, "&" is used in lieu of "and", and "Solo" is used instead of "Solo career". Some of the images also verge too much towards being off-topic; including cannabis plants is a bit of a stretch, though I can understand the desire to add free-use images where primarily fair-use ones are available.
• Also, all the Fair-Use images need fair use rationales. -Silence 05:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Grammatical, orthographical and stylistic problems throughout the text that keep it from being "brilliant and compelling" as required by 1(a). Too many paragraphs with one or two sentences. Citations good. Remove size/pixel parameters from the thumbnails per WP:MOS and WP:IUP to accomodate user preference settings. A few images with dubious claims of copyright ownership and public domain release (July_1946.jpg, Dakota2.jpg), or violate the use of their fair use (Elvismccartney.jpg...on more articles than necessary to "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" per the Fair Use tag; and the use of Paul McCartney by Richard Avedon.jpg doesn't seem to be in keeping with policy). Need to work on the captions, per criteria on Wikipedia:Captions, especially captions should explain their relevance to the article. At this point, I could put a picture of a hamburger there and it would be just as relevant without a well-written explanatory caption. Also, it is isn't "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral", it's just "Liverpool Cathedral" (well actually, it's the Cathedral Church of Christ in Liverpool, but we'll go for short-form common name here), while yes it is an Anglican house of worship, it isn't part of the name. I think this fails the test of 1(b) for comprehensiveness, as there's no discussion of the "impact" of his forays into classical music composition. The Heather Mills marriage section is stubbish, skipping over everything between October 2003 and July 2006. His marriage to Linda, from 1968 until her death, leaves out a large swath between 1980 and her death 1998. Many of the sections give only cursory discussion, or perfunctory mentions of key things in McCartney's life. Citations are in the oddest of places, not conforming with WP:CITE. Example: In a 1980 interview,[102] (In the "Solo" section). Please make the citations conform to WP:CITE and give them logical, appropriate placement within the sentences. —ExplorerCDT 07:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There are two Cathedrals in Liverpool. andreasegde 08:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply: Yes, one is Liverpool Cathedral, the other is Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral. One Anglican, the other Catholic. Last time I was in Liverpool, I don't remember seeing a place called "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral". —ExplorerCDT 08:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Try this: Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral.
  • There's a difference between the nominative "Liverpool Anglican Cathedral" and the possessive "Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral". When I first observed the article, it was not in the possessive. Even you should recognize that. Also, it doesn't compensate for the fact that the caption doesn't conform to the criteria set in Wikipedia:Captions. —ExplorerCDT 09:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The Anglican Cathedral in Liverpool, I believe... andreasegde 09:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It is still just a "Label". A caption (which is demanded here) explains the relevance for which the image was included in the article. This caption does not, it just labels the picture. —ExplorerCDT 09:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "orthographical/spelling mistakes"? Where are they?
  • Orthography isn't just spelling. For starters, the use of the ampersand is wholly unprofessional. I'd give you a list (despite having given one above), but in as much time as I'd take compiling a definitive list, I would better waste my time correcting them. (I'm not, it's not my job, nor do I have the time to be a copyeditor or a contributor to this article) when someone who is a contributor to this article (who cares about remedying the flaws for this FA candidacy) could just copyedit through the article. —ExplorerCDT 09:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• "Linda, and Heather Mills McCartney". Their own pages may shed some light. andreasegde 08:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That does not solve the problem that this current article has large lacunae in several areas where discussion is perfunctorily brief or wholly lacking but needed/wanted for the sake of meeting 1(b) comprehensiveness (even if there's more on another article, it doesn't matter when it should be discussed here...after all, they aren't FACs, but this is.). —ExplorerCDT 09:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • 'lacunae' - a gap or missing part, as in a manuscript, series, or logical argument. andreasegde 09:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Nice to know you can locate the word in the dictionary. ;-) It's the perfect way to describe the large swaths of missing material in sections of the article that just glance over major issues in McCartney's life and demand substantial treatment, and what needs to be remedied in order to meet the 1(b) "comprehensive" criteria. —ExplorerCDT 09:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
        • We had massive problems in cutting Paul McCartney's article to less than 10,000 words. We could not put everything in, so we had to cut a lot of things. We conformed to Wikipedia rules, but we still think it relays the main points in McCartney's musical (and private) life. andreasegde 10:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
          • That's the issue...you might have cut out too much. It covers the points, but with gaps, and with such a quick glance at the point that it neglects to be comprehensive. You don't have to put every little detail, but in order to meet criteria 1(b) you have to cover parts comprehensively. A good copyedit will maximize what is said in a minimal number of words. And that's precisely what this article needs. 10,000 words is an artificial limit and shouldn't be the sole factor in how to edit this article. The criteria only establishes that it must be "of appropriate length" and that is conceived with how completely the other criteria are met, and I'd say "appropriate length" is inextricably tied to comprehensiveness per 1(b). —ExplorerCDT 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Hello...raw numbers of refs does not equal a FA. In addition to problems above, let's look just at refs, and just the web refs...they are inconcistent, some have retrieval dates-some don't, some have the title--one only has the url, some have the publisher, some don't. I would fail the FAC just for this alone. The refs should be consistent, all the web ones should be the same format, all the book ones the same, etc. For web refs, it's best to have at least the url, title, publisher, and retrieval date at a minimum. Footnotes do not have a preceding space either.Rlevse 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Anyone objecting based on 1. b. is talking through their backsides. When a certain subtopic is huge, it's meant to be put into subarticles. LuciferMorgan 13:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Unlikely as it is to hear this from me, you might want to take another look at WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. —ExplorerCDT 13:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Lol here we go... LuciferMorgan 14:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'll have to agree with Explorer. There are nicer ways to voice disagreement. I'll also have to disagree with the claim that articles can't be objected to on criterion 1b as long as they cover everything in their daughter articles. The relevance of 1b is not negated by the existence of daughter articles: the function of daughter articles is to provide more space to discuss non-essential topics that are nonetheless noteworthy and informative. Daughter articles do not eliminate 1b, because essential topics (i.e., ones that are necessary for the article to be comprehensive) still need to be covered by the top-level article, at least briefly. -Silence 14:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support just becuase I can't see anything that I could object about without a) fixing it myself in less time that it takes me to write this; and b) without being heroically pedantic.--Crestville 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. The references are not correctly formatted and expanded to a consistent and thorough bibliographic style of citation. Further, the number of footnotes is overstated by over-referencing - for example:
  • In 1947, when McCartney was five years old, Mary McCartney became a domiciliary midwife,[5] which meant she was always on-call.[5] Her income allowed the McCartneys to move to Sir Thomas White Gardens and live in a rent-free flat owned by her employers.[5] They moved again, to 72 Western Avenue,[5]
• In the example above, ref no. 5 is used four times consecutively to cite 2 1/2 sentences - it could be used once. The article looks like a dartboard - this is an example where over-referencing impedes readability, and yet another example of why counting citations does not an FA make.
• It also appears that sources which do not rise to the level of WP:RS have been used, but until the websources are properly expanded to indicate publisher/author on each source, it is difficult to determine reliability without exploring each individual websource used.
• A copyedit is also needed - while attempting to correct for WP:FN, I saw this punctuation:
  • In 1955, the McCartney family moved to 20 Forthlin Road,[10] - in Allerton -[11] which is now owned by The National Trust.
• The article should be withdrawn from FAC, reworked, and resubmitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why should it be withdrawn? The article editors should take this opportunity to get as much feedback as possible on ways to improve the article, so they have a better chance of it succeeding next time. -Silence 18:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yes, I 'spose now that it's here, you're correct ... I should have more correctly said that this article really could have benefitted from a peer review before coming to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Adding to my Object list, the current prose size is 55KB - much too long. See WP:LENGTH for guidelines on readable prose; summary style can be more effectively used to reduce the size to something more manageable - in the range of 40KB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It seems to me that the easiest way to trim this article down to a reasonable size would be to create a daughter article or two for sections like "Family life" and "Lifestyle", perhaps "Personal life of Paul McCartney". Many of the other sections merit their length on this page, but those sections seem like they could provide all the essentials in 1/2 or 1/3 the space. I've never seen an article before that had a page and a half on a celebrity's various marriages and relationships, or a full page on one's recreational drug use; even Kurt Cobain spends less than half a page on drug use, and about 3/5 of a page on marriage. -Silence 23:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Odd to say this but I think there are too many refrences It give it a messy layout with all these numbers everywhere. Also a lot of them don't give the date, the source or any kind of link.Buc 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support and comment This is a comprehensive article on a very large subject, and the editors have worked diligently to be sure it is NPOV, well researched, well referenced and well written. I notice none of the critiques say anything about the article being POV or "fannish" or too listy or OR or any of the other common criticisms - I just want to point out that that is not accidental, and an FA critique of a piece might have taken the time to acknowledge that, and encourage the editors regarding their work. Many of the above comments are nitpicky - length of dashes, for example - and can be easily handled, as someone said, with another copyedit. Sometimes FA reviews stress that articles are too long - the 10,000 word guideline - so the editors responded to that in advance of the criticism to fork off sections to sub articles. There is a difference of opinion among Wikipedia editors as to whether one should then include highlights of the forked off material in the main article or not - the editors of Paul McCartney chose to have short summaries of the forks - but then they are criticized here for doing that - that sections are too short and missing a lot of detail. Hard to do both - the Linda McCartney section being a good example. If the reviewers are saying that the editors should not worry about length, that, I suspect, would be welcome news. As for the quality of the sources, some specificity in the critique would be appreciated. I hope that the comment immediately above this one meant that there were too many places where the references were inserted - as someone else said above - not that there actually are too many references. Tvoz | talk 19:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The fact that an article includes a large number of mistakes that would have been easy to fix is an argument against, not for, that article becoming an FA. It shows a relative disregard for readability, consistency, and the Manual of Style, ignoring the readers' most immediate concerns (that an article be well-written and accessible) in favor of more editorial concerns like verifiability and NPOV. There is no reason that both areas can't be met. Featured Articles should not simply be whichever articles are most NPOV or non-"fannish" (else we'd feature all the train station articles), nor whichever articles have the largest number of references (in fact, I've seen a number of FAs failed or almost failed in the past for having too many references), but by a variety of factors, including quality of writing. Disregarding this vitally important criterion as "nitpicky" is disrespectful of both various editors' valid concerns, and of the explicitly-stated Featured Article criteria. Besides, if a single copyedit can resolve all the problems that have been brought up so far, that raises the question of why such a copyedit was not performed before the FA nomination, and of why one hasn't been proposed or attempted over the course of the nomination. As for the length/quality issue, if you want to see an example of an article that does an excellent job of handling numerous daughter articles without sacrificing either brevity or comprehensiveness, see Charles Darwin. -Silence 20:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Quality of writing, yes. Length of dashes, no. I'm not at all saying copyedit comments should be ignored, I'm merely pointing out the difference between sections 1 and 2 of WP:WIAFA. What you call "editorial concerns", it seems to me, are more prominently listed in the guidelines, and all I was saying was that an acknowledgment of that would have been welcome in a review which then went on to point out specific style problems, some of which have already been responded to. Tvoz | talk 21:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Quality of writing and length of dashes, yes. (Though technically Paul McCartney is not merely using the "wrong length" of dashes, but is actually using a non-dash where a dash is appropriate: a hyphen is not a dash.) The two are mutually complementary, not mutually exclusive. Using a hyphen ("-") in lieu of an em-dash ("—") is just as much a grammatical error as using a comma where you should use a period. Criterion 2 of WP:FA? states, in part, that an FA "complies with the standards set out in the manual of style", and the MoS is quite clear in stating, in part, "The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words. The en-dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges. The em-dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence". The primary purpose of WP:FAC is not to praise articles, but to assess whether they are at FA-quality; praise is welcome, but hardly necessary, and many editors don't have the time to praise every article they critique. I'll gladly praise the article after the important work on it is done. But "you weren't nice enough in your criticism" is not a valid objection to a relevant and factual FA objection. -Silence 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have read conflicting comments about the 10,000 words problem. One says it is not a problem, and the other says it is. Can someone give a definite answer? andreasegde 04:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say that it is "not a problem", I just said it shouldn't be the sole consideration in determining how an article should be edited. I said: 10,000 words is an artificial limit and shouldn't be the sole factor in how to edit this article. The criteria only establishes that it must be "of appropriate length" and that is conceived with how completely the other criteria are met, and I'd say "appropriate length" is inextricably tied to comprehensiveness per 1(b). Since 10,000 is arbitary, and not explicitly in the criteria, I think the application of the criteria should be addressed before imposing an artificial "word count" limitation. —ExplorerCDT 08:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Andreasegde, please don't get hung up on the issue of en and em dashes and spaces after footnotes - reviewers would never object based on these things alone, as they are easily fixed. We raise the minor stuff so you'll become better editors, more aware of Wiki guidelines (see WP:FN). When an otherwise excellent article only has WP:FN problems, I use Gimmetrow's fabulous ref-fixing script to fix them myself, but I still let editors know, so they won't do it next time. The point is, this article has much larger problems, and that is what you all should focus on, without taking it personally. Much of this could have been avoided by first running the article through peer review, where the basic problems would have been noticed. On the 10,000 word issue, I hope you've read WP:LENGTH - it's not only a matter of how much an average reader can digest in one sitting - it's also a matter of load time for readers who don't have fast access. My outside limit when I begin to object to article size is 40KB of prose, measured as explained at WP:LENGTH - the correlation to number of words is a rough estimate. I encourage you to put the little stuff behind you, move on, and concentrate on getting the article to FA status - referencing is usually one of the hardest parts, and if your refs are sound, you're halfway there. Save your effort - and preserve goodwill - for next time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Last Comment: As this review is about to close, I ask you to look at this:

Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and tho’

We are not now that strength which in old days

Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;

One equal temper of heroic hearts,

Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will

To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

(Tennyson)

Have fun. andreasegde 10:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • This review doesn't close until the FA Director, Raul654, decides either a consensus has been achieved to promote or fail an FAC, or that the FAC has just died, or that's it's been withdrawn. You just put this up yesterday, it can go on for another 3 or 4 weeks. —ExplorerCDT 10:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Could I just drop this in, then? (It's from a Wikipedia site...)

En dash versus em dash

The en dash is half the width of the em dash. The width of the en dash was originally the width of the typeset letter "N", while the width of the em dash was the width of "M"; hence the names.

Traditionally an em dash—like so—or spaced em dash — like so — has been used for a dash in running text. Some guides, including the Elements of Typographic Style, now recommend the more concise spaced en dash – like so – and argue that the length and visual magnitude of an em dash cater to grandiose Victorian era taste. However, some longstanding typographical guides such as The Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes for this purpose. In practice, there is little consensus, and it is a matter of personal or house taste; the important thing is that usage should be consistent.

En dashes are often preferred to em dashes when text is set in narrow columns (as in newspapers and similar publications).

There you go. andreasegde 11:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) for discussion of proper usage on Wikipedia. —ExplorerCDT 11:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I found that on a Wiki page ("em-dash") Which one is right? Elements of Typographic Style, or Wiki? andreasegde 13:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neither. The criteria demands that the article comply with the demands of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and other policies and guidelines. An article discussing the history and usage of the Em-Dash in the article namespace (i.e. Dash) is not a policy or guideline, nor does it in any way negate the authority of the WP:MOS. External style guides and manuals are precisely that...external. When in Rome, etc. —ExplorerCDT 13:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is interesting. Which Roman wrote the Wikipedia:Manual of Style? I have just looked at McCartney, and found (roughly) four en-dashes where em-dashes should be, BTW. :) andreasegde 13:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia:Manual of Style cites the The Chicago Manual of Style as the only external reference. "External style guides and manuals are precisely that...external", takes on a whole new meaning, if you don't mind me saying... andreasegde 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whether or not WP:MOS cites Chicago is incidental: it doesn't negate that the FA criteria states it must comply with the WP:MOS. Right now, you're splitting hairs from a bald man. —ExplorerCDT 17:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is not about em-dashes versus en-dashes, andreasegde. It is about dashes versus hyphens. Consider, for example, the sentence "McCartney was baptized Roman Catholic but was raised non-denominationally - his mother was Roman Catholic and his father, James 'Jim' McCartney, was a Protestant turned agnostic." A hyphen is used, correctly, for "non-denominationally"; it is then used, incorrectly, to link two clauses, which is the function of an em-dash. Using a hyphen in place of a dash is no more acceptable than using a comma in place of a period. -Silence 17:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• If we are to be judged, then I would only like to know by whose rules we are judged. Somebody had to write the rules in the first place, did they not? Apologies to the bald man, BTW. andreasegde 18:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's rather obvious that content on Wikipedia would be judged by Wikipedia's rules. And, if I were you, I would spend more time getting the article up to snuff and trying to make it worthy of FA status instead of arguing incidental points or asking quis custodiet? —ExplorerCDT 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • quis custodiet? = "Who will guard the guards?" It seems like the guards are controlling themselves. Have you ever read 'Lord of the Flies'? (One never starts a sentence with 'And', BTW. :) Read the next comment about the size of the article—will this problem ever be resolved?andreasegde 19:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have advised you that it would be best if you worked on fixing the article per the FAC discussion suggestions and criticisms. You're just wasting your and infinitely more regrettably my time. As long as the article meets the FAC criteria, we can dispense with arbitrary edicts of "size" as long as it is "of appropriate length" (the criteria determiner) given the subject. Instead, you've wasted days arguing about whether or not you had to use em-dashes, doubting whether Wikipedia has authority over its own project or could implement its own rules and as a result have done absolutely nothing to improve the article to FA standards (which the people with whom you've argued are more fluent in than you are). Do the work, improve the article to FA standards, or withdraw the nomination. Simple. Otherwise, you're wasting other people's time. —ExplorerCDT 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I am sorry that you sound so angry. When you say that I "have done absolutely nothing to improve the article to FA standards," I feel that maybe you misunderstand the situation. andreasegde 20:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not angry, but I am frustrated that you cannot accept that Wikipedia's rules are the rules the project is governed by, that you continue to doubt the authority of style policies and guidelines and that while you were spending so much time arguing over em-dashes, you could have addressed many of the comments, criticisms and suggestions for article improvement mentioned above. In comparing your argumentation here and the improvement work on the article, you've spent far too much time arguing incidental points, quoting Tennyson and the article suffers because of it. It would be much better, and I reiterate my advice. You ought better "fill the unforgiving minute / With sixty seconds' worth of distance run". —ExplorerCDT 20:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
            • "Wikipedia's rules are the rules the project is governed by", and "you continue to doubt the authority of style policies and guidelines". You sound like a policeman—I give up. I wish you the best.andreasegde 20:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Nope, not a cop. Just stating the obvious to someone acting wholly oblivious. I wish the article the best, but doubt it'll get close to that.—ExplorerCDT 20:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The page is 103 KB long, of which I assume over 50 KB must be readable prose, making it much too long for a Good Article, let alone a Featured Article.--Grand Slam 7 | Talk 15:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Current readable prose is 54KB. Suggestions for trimming have been given above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Minor Support good article, with all references possible, but is way too big, may need some condensing. igordebraga ≠ 18:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Jupiter

This article was the winner of the AID of 27 December 2006. Since then, the article almost instantly became a good article, and is probably ready for featured article status. Diez2 16:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The arrangement of the pictures gets a bit cluttered towards the second half, with all of the pictures lined up down the right side. (Usually articles look better if they alternate sides.) There are also a few citation needed tags that need to be taken care of. MLilburne 17:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the positioning of the images so they will alternate. Diez2 18:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose There are external jumps in the infobox, these should be converted to references. There are also a few citations need tags and an uncited section tag, these need to be fixed. Jay32183 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • In addition, there is an overview section. The lead should summarize the article, there should not be another overall summary in the body. See Venus for how an article on a planet should be sectioned. Jay32183 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Many of the refs need attention, as well. Some are missing the author, and another leads to a subscription form at Science magazine, and not the article. At least one needs an ISBN number. They need to be consistent in styling, as well. Some have the article tiotle first, others have the author listed first. There were other ref problems that I saw, but lost the info during an edit conflict. Jeffpw 19:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECTION 'STRENUOUSLY OBJECT (see below) For way too many reasons. This article is plainly not ready for FAC.
  • Images. Too much jarring back and forth between left right left right. unaesthetic and unbalanced. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters for thumbnail images as they do not accomoadate user preferences. Also, the infobox and image stacking issues are causing huge white spaces in sections (like Overview) when the article is viewed in every browser with the wide range of resolution and other settings that I've tried.
    • Comment I couldn't disagree more with the left and right statement. I like the format of images on both sides of an article. Right aligning all images on one side either a)limits the numbers of images able to be inserted or b)leads to even more huge ugly blank gaps in the article. Quadzilla99 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with alternating left and right orientation, but this jars back and forth too much, and makes the entire article unbalanced especially with how it causes numerous white space problems. Also, if you're going to comment, do so without splitting up someone else's comments. —ExplorerCDT 01:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Just thought of something, the problems caused by excess images could be alleviated by putting the images in a gallery format toward the bottom of the article. —ExplorerCDT 13:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Citations. There are several {{citation needed}} and {{unreferenced}} tags. This is thoroughly unacceptable for an FAC. Need to settle on one consistent style. Also, magazines/journals have ISSN numbers (the periodical equivalent of an ISBN number) that should be included.
  • Writing and Comprehensiveness Far from meeting the criteria, IMHO. The writing does not captivate me the way a science article should. It's not compelling or brilliant prose as required by criteria 1(a) It also does not go into needed detail and elaboration. Several short paragraphs (sections) that just seem to make a minimal effort at getting to be three sentences without adding much-desired substance. Example (from Exploration of Jupiter): Voyager 1 flew by in March 1979 followed by Voyager 2 in July of the same year. The Voyagers vastly improved the understanding of the Galilean moons and discovered Jupiter's rings. They also took the first close up images of the planet's atmosphere.. HOW? What did we learn? What did the images show? How did scientific knowledge be expanded by this mission? This sort of scrutiny and elaboration is lacking throughout the entire article...short, cursory, almost perfunctory discussions where much more is expected. Regarding the moons....why the classifications? Why are the classification categories unique? similar? different? Also, Trojan asteroids should be combined in the "natural satellite" section. Lastly, on this point...why would we call this section superfluously "natural satellites" when I don't think science has found an single one that could be called "unnatural".
  • Accuracy. This article has sections full of old information and assumptions that have been recently debunked (in the last five years or so). The theory of ejected satellite material being the composition of Jupiter's rings has been thrown out with recent scholarships. —ExplorerCDT 19:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment: Picture placement is largely an aesthetic preference. If the images are causing white space, that's a problem, but left/right/left/right is a perfectly sensible picture arrangement and should not be an actionable objection in my view. Further, ISBNs and ISSNs have never been required by the FAC criteria, nor should they be. If you feel strongly that they be included, by all means, add them, of course. -- BrianSmithson 02:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • ISBNs and ISSNs are required as part of varifiability. The more accurate the source information the better. Leaving things out when they're reasonable to find is bad. Jay32183 03:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't mind the left-right-left-right if the images were properly balanced with the article. Instead, it jars back and forth and screws up the article balance. ISBNs and ISSNs are part of full citations and as Jay32183 said, help with verifiability. Fix it, don't make excuses. Excuses keep this article from becoming an FA. —ExplorerCDT 03:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Again, y'all are entitled to your opinions, but the image arrangement looks perfectly fine from my browser. The ISBN/ISSN thing is a larger issue than this one FAC, so I won't say more on that. But I'm not the nominator, just a commentator, and will not be making any changes on this article in pursuit of FA status. -- BrianSmithson 04:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Reply. As to ISBNs, I think that since they're publishing information, they are required by the demand for a "complete citation" in WP:CITE, and for articles demanding higher quality, they should be demanded here. As to your objection about images: NOT all users use your preferences or your resolution or your other browser settings. When you look at it through a variety of settings, this article does not accommodate all users simply because its formatting and other things (like image placement) throw off the balance. FACs should accommodate the reader, not the writer, and that's the spirit of the relevant policies and guidelines in the MoS and other usage policies. If you want to deem this as "unactionable" this FAC will fail for not living up to criteria 2, since you're ignoring parts of the MoS and other relevant policies. —ExplorerCDT 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Please reread what I wrote and check the names of the nominator and authors of the Jupiter article. I am not involved with this article or FAC except for my trying to argue against some silly objections. -- BrianSmithson 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
              • But the point was that your argument was worng and the objections are valid. Whether you do the work doesn't matter, the work needs to be done. Jay32183 06:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
                • We can "is not"/"is so" all day long, so I think I'll drop the issue (though I stand by my comments). I will report that from home, I do notice some white-space issues toward the bottom of the article in the sections "Natural satellites" and "Classification of Jupiter's moons". Left/right/left/right is A-OK, but white space, you are right, should best be avoided. — BrianSmithson 09:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Diez2, I also find it troubling that you changed the rating of this article from GA to A at the same time you nominated it. As you are the nominator of this article, that seems a conflict of interest to me. Jeffpw 23:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object — The article compares fairly somewhat favorably to Venus IMO, an FA. However this article only has minimal coverage on the topic of interior models. It fails completely to explain Jupiter's most noticeable aspect: the colors of it multi-hued bands. Several of the sub-sections under "Exploration of Jupiter" spend as much time discussing the missions as they do the discoveries. (I think these could be readily merged into a single section about "Fly-by missions", and still provide sufficient coverage.) Finally there's the issue of the missing citations. But otherwise I think it's 90+% of the way to becoming an FA. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I note that this article has now also been requested for Peer Review, with the comment that "the article almost instantly became a GA, but failed horribly in the nomination for FA. I was wondering how to improve this article for FA status." may I suggest that either the peer review or this nomination be withdrawn? These sort of multiple reviews are both time consuming and a cause of confusion for editors in general. I would also add that since this article was nominated less than 24 hours ago, it is a bit hasty to conclude that it has "failed horribly". Jeffpw 16:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Some good work done here, but I object for now.

• TOC is overwhelming in Exploration section. Why doesn't Exploration of Jupiter yet exist?
• Prose is often clunky. Some examples:
  • "It is 318 times more massive than Earth, with a diameter 11 times that of Earth, and its volume is 1300 times as great as that of Earth." I'm sure this can be written without repeating Earth three times.
  • A few problems with the next sentence: "Quite naturally, Jupiter's gravitational influence has dominated the evolution of the solar system." Abverbial phrases like "quite naturally" are almost always fluff outside of personal writing. The statement is also incorrect: "Excepting the Sun, Jupiter's gravitational influence..."
  • Chop the following snake apart: "However, even before Voyager proved that the feature was a storm, there was strong evidence that the spot cannot be associated with any deeper feature on the planet's surface, as it has been proven that the Spot rotates differentially with respect to the rest of the atmosphere, sometimes faster and sometimes more slowly, so that during its recorded history it has traveled several times around the planet with regard to any possible fixed rotational marker below it."
• Finally, the already mentioned issue of citations (1c). Marskell 17:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I started an "Exploration of" page with a cut-and-paste. Fill that one out and then reduce this one and we're on our way. I'll work away on it myself. Marskell 17:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral - needs unsourced statements fixed before sliding over to support... Kamope · talk · contributions 12:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• COMMENT. I am rather astonished that after a week almost none of my criticisms and suggestions made above with regard to my objection have been addressed. My objection is now "strenuously" lodged. —ExplorerCDT 13:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be so astonished. It's the nature of FAC that some get dropped by nominators. This'll likely get removed soon, and then we can see who's willing to work to bring it back here. Marskell 20:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not the FAC nominator, but I have an interest in seeing this article improved in quality. So your comments are appreciated and I've been trying to address them as time permits. (As have others, it appears.) Likely this will be brought back as a FAC in the future once the issues are addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your work, RJH. One thought I had was to edit out the "Overview" section. I think these sections are rarely necessary. Marskell 06:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] U2

I'm nominating this article once again because all of the problems found during the previous nomination (previous FAC) have been resolved -- namely, a longer and more substantial lead-in, 100+ citations with no "citations needed" left, fair use media files reorganized, and an overhauled "Campaigning" section that's been "de-listified". Wikipedia brown 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT External jumps within the text of the article need to be turned into references or removed. In references, why are some ISBNs linked and others not? —ExplorerCDT 20:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Needs a thorough copy edit. To take some examples from the second section:

• "...Dave Evans (The Edge) and his brother Dik Evans on guitar, and Mullen's friends Ivan McCormick and Peter Martin" - 'as well as' Mullen's friends.
• "Martin only came to the first practice," - 'attended', practice session.
• "and McCormick was out of the group within a few weeks." - 'had left within'.
• "performed a farewell show in the Presbyterian Church Hall in Howth where Dik ceremoniously walked offstage;" - 'during which', and a comma is missing.
• "the remaining four members finished their performance as 'U2', playing original material". Not sure what this means - did they rename the band and switch from playing cover versions as he walked offstage. If so why, was Dik Evans objecting to these changes - the preceeding sentence only says that there were tension regarding line up.

• Comment. Correct, according to the sources I quoted, that night they played as the 'Hype' with Dik and played covers. They then came nack on stage, without Dik, and played original song they had written. I will look into clarfify as necessary. As for the reasons, my sources are vague. Will look into it. Merbabu 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If your souces are vague, then they are not reliable, and should not be included. + Ceoil 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources from memory (hence my comment to look into it) on the specific issue of the reasons he left i remember are vague. On the whole, it is one of the most reliable sources on U2 have seen in over 20 years of following them (and I've seen and own many sources). I'm sorry, but a glib comment saying it is not reliable without (presuambly) being familiar with the book is, well, not 'reliable' opinion either. sorry. PLease don't take offence - i agree with almost all your other comments here on the article. Merbabu 02:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you should not be here, in FAC, claiming sources are from memory; will back it up tommorow. Basic issues like this should be resolved before FAC. + Ceoil 02:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I was just responding to comments on edit I had made. I've already said several times i don't support either nomination. I didn't nominate the bloody article - i just passed comment for the point of clarification. thanks!Merbabu 02:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Apology, I misunderstood your 'from memory' comment + Ceoil 21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• "won a talent show...for which the prize money was £500 and a record deal to record a demo" - comma missing, 'as well as'. Record deals are usually for singles, EPs, and albums, not demos. Should it be 'oppurtunity to record'?

• Comment My sources are vague as to what was actually on offer. Although, it wasn't much. I think it was essentially studio time to do a demo. I will check. The main point was that it was according to the band (who were aged 14 to 16), a milestone in terms of their self-confidence and an affirmation. Merbabu 01:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

If your souces are vague, then they are not reliable, and should not be inlcuded. + Ceoil 01:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• "according to one author" - author should be named.
• "U2's first release came in September 1979; an Ireland-only EP entitled Three" - 1979, with an Ireland...
• "1,000" should be 'one thousand' rather than digits, London should not be a blue link.

• Clayton, Bono and the Edge are all wiki-linked in both the lead and the "Formation" paragraph - ideally only link once. Bono and the Edge's real names should be given in the lead, rather than in a later section.
• The punctuation needs work throughout; lots of commas missing, and later on in the article: "The album was released on 22 November worldwide. debuting at #1 in 32 countries, including the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Ireland...."
• Per WP:CITE, all references should be expanded to include, where possible, the author & date of publication. The publication name should not be included within the article title hyperlink.+ Ceoil 21:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reference formats such as 89-92 need to be cleaned up.
• Ideally hyperlink to the original source rather than reproductions of the articles on U2.com or u2station.com.
• "U2 by U2" is already mentioned in the "General references and further reading" section (which needs to be split into "Sources" and "Further reading") - as a footnote you only then need to cite "Bono, The Edge, Clayton, Mullen (2006), p. xx). + Ceoil 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose also for prose. Added to the above:

• U2 have consistently remained - how could they have inconsistently remained?
• "Beautiful Day," which also earned - "also" is redundant, and is used in the two following sentences to this one as well.
• Further to that, do a search through the article for use of "also" and remove it where it's redundant, I can see a couple more cases straight-off.
• re-invented doesn't need a hypen
• critically acclaimed does (and perhaps boundary pushing, I'm not sure)

Also, is the "see also" section really needed? It's not a long way off, but it still need some work. Trebor 21:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Refs 31, 36 and 66 need more work, plus not all the online refs have retrieval dates (I'm surprised you're not using cite templates, but each to their own). Trebor 22:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support, having done a rather thorough copy-editing. I've addressed all the comments above that I thought needed addressing. The article is very thorough and well-sourced, and I'm not sure what more we could ask for. Mangojuice^talk 21:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • On further reflection, I oppose. The article does cover all the basic things, I think, but it's far enough from the quality prose we're capable of producing on Wikipedia that I don't think this should be a featured article. This is a very interesting topic, but the article is somewhat dull. It feels at times like facts are being jammed in without regard to their relative importance -- as an example, it's much more interesting how the whole Achtung Baby reinvention came about than all the record sales statistics, or continually noting the producers of the albums. Mangojuice^talk 23:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict]. Nice copy editing Mango, but the text needs an awful lot more work. Wikipedia brown, the prose is dull throughout and often unclear; many sentences are awkward.

• "While Adam and Larry preferred to keep a similar sound" - Similar to what?
• "inspired by alternative and European dance music" - Not clear: alternative music, or alternative dance music?
• "Weeks of slow progress, argument, and frustration ended when Edge came up with a chord progression that the band quickly worked up into the song "One"." - There is a much larger story here, and one well documented. The band were close to splitting, and "one" is the song that allowed the third phase of their career to develop. Should be expanded. I'd prefer if the sections were split as roughly "Early years", "The Unforgettable Fire - Rattle and Hum", "Achtung Baby - Popmart", "All That You Can't Leave Behind - present", as it maps their development and reflects the career about turns they made. "came up with" - wrote.
• "The band often referred to the new sound as "four men chopping down the Joshua Tree" - needs to be qualified. The word 'irony' does not appear anywhere in the whole text, but in almost all articles on the band between Achtung Baby and Passengers. Why did they react against the Joshua Tree? Techno, Madchester, Indie-dance, Loveless, the Pixies. This kind of context needs to be included.
• "Initially intended as an EP, Zooropa expanded into a full-fledged LP, and was released in July of 1993". Why did it expand into a LP? Teasing statments like this are littered throughout the article.
• "Most of the songs were played at least once in the 1993 leg of the tour through Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, with half the album's tracks becoming fixtures in the set." at least once during...which extended accross.

Examples only. + Ceoil 23:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mango, you've summed exactly my thoughts on the article. Too many stats, at the expense of insight and context. + Ceoil 00:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Oppose: I've been one of the editors close to this article and I must admit I have been surprised at the two recent nominations for FA. The big problem for me is prose. It is dull and clunky and this is related to the complaints that it is big on facts and short on context and significance. It is the facts though that are easier to reference and addition of "context" and "significance" is far more useful BUT more difficult and easily leads to people claiming POV issues (albeit the POV of millions of fans), while the feeling I have got from all the editors (which has rubbed off on me) is to stick to the facts, and keep away from the significance. Anyway, i will start putting some time in to put some more context and less facts which can be moved off to the more song, album and tour specific articles. I think I will start with the Unforgettable Fire Period. Merbabu 00:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

From your comment, a peer review rather than FAC is probably the next appropriate step. + Ceoil 01:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there was peer review, and this very issue came up, but it all seemed too hard, and speaking for myself i was deeply involved in a completely un-related wikipedia article over the last month or so. (btw, i added some clarification to my comment above) Merbabu 01:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] History of Pittsburgh

This article traces the colorful and dynamic history of Pittsburgh. This is a self-nomination. I nominated it first in Oct 2006. Since then, the following improvements have been made:

• lead section improved
• copy-edited by myself and other Wikipedia:WikiProject Pittsburgh editors
• maps improved and made more compliant with Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps standards
• adherence to Wikipedia policies improved following peer review
• information in lists and short paragraphs moved to more substantive paragraphs
• reference density increased, and other improvements based on previous FAC feedback

I believe this article is now ready to be featured. I look forward to making further improvements based on your feedback. Automated peer reviews have already been conducted and should no longer be necessary. Tomcool 18:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Object. Not comprehensive. For example, the University of Pittsburgh, the city's largest employer, is not mentioned at all.RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 20:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Object Not encyclopaedic enough. Not enough mention of U. Pittsburgh given its import in state politics and society. 62.30.217.20 03:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article did in fact include several statements about the city's universities, including this one about Pitt: "Oakland's University of Pittsburgh erected the world's second-tallest educational building, the 42-story Cathedral of Learning." There was also a See Also link to the University of Pittsburgh article, and a link to Historic Pittsburgh, part of University of Pittsburgh's University Library System. I've added additional information about Pitt's founding and its significance as a top employer in the city. Obviously there's a lot of history to tell about each of the city's significant institutions, such as US Steel, CMU, Mellon Bank, Alcoa, PPG, etc., but we can only do so much in one article. The treatment is to touch the tops of the waves of the institutions, telling the story of the city overall, and leaving more detailed histories for the individual articles on those institutions. Tomcool 18:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, so far two editors (one that's an anonymous IP making its second edit) think it needs more Pitt. It had some Pitt and I added some more. Any other thoughts, please? Tomcool 21:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] World of Warcraft

archive of previous nomination

• I feel that this is a great article. It is currently a GA but deserves better than that. In the case that it fails, I hope to find new ways to improve the article. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Per nom/myself. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - World_of_Warcraft#Deviation from the MMORPG archetype is still tagged as unreferenced, and World_of_Warcraft#The_Scourge_Invasion still has an in-universe notice. Carson 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - In addition to the above, there is no discussion as to why the game has both sold well and been well-received by critics. Nifboy 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support - The problems present in this article are largely miniscule and fixable. The content itself is extremely thorough and well-rounded, and presents a comprehensive view of the subject. Hojimachong 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - World_of_Warcraft#Deviation from the MMORPG archetype is completely unreferenced and unwikified. CloudNine 09:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - The above definitely need to be addressed before FA. What is the reason for the semi-protection? Instability of the article seems to be a problem. I also question whether the CD section adds much to the article. I would suggest deleting it or at minimum splitting it out. Johntex\^talk 10:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The Major World Events section is unreferenced, as are many other paragraphs/sections. The lead also needs to be expanded to summarize the points in the body of the article, and (minor point) you don't need to cite in the lead, assuming those points are mentioned in the article and cited there. I see at least one assertion (number of players in China) is not mentioned, so should be dropped from the lead or added to the article. Your footnotes also need to be properly and consistently formatted. Please see WP:FN for detailed information about how to do that. There are several errors in the referencing formatting. Lastly, I am never inclined to support a FAC which is protected. If it is unstable now, it will become even more contested after it is featured (in my opinion). Jeffpw 10:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - The article is thoroughly non-comprehensive because it is written from a single point of view only: that of the players. Thus, it is lacking critical discussion of major topics, such as:
  • Development: Who conceived the game? What is their background? How was the game developed? How did it evolve through development? Which design departments were involved? Engine, graphics, gameplay, sound, music: how were they created? How long did the development take? How is the game being maintained?
  • Business/financial: Who came up with the pay-per-play business model? How much money are the making from it? What did the game do to the financial results of Blizzard? Is Blizzard both the designer and the publisher of the game, or do they employ the services of a separate publisher? How about marketing? Advertising campaigns?
  • Games industry: What effect did the game have on the games industry? Did it start a move towards pay-per-play? Were there any attempts at copying the success of WoW (successful or not)? Did the game invigorate the MMORPG genre? What are the major competitors to WoW and Blizzard?
  • Technical: What kind of infrastructure is used to support WoW? What do those "server clusters" do? Where are they hosted? What are their specifications? What software is running on it? How do clients and servers communicate? Who maintains the server infrastructure, and how?

  These questions are not meant to be all-inclusive, but should give you some idea of the topics that need to be addressed. I'd recommend excising a significant part of the fancruft-y, in-universe content (and do we really need a full listing of the WoW soundtrack?), and to replace it with a more distanced, critical view of the game as a whole. The "Criticisms" should not be relegated to an atrophied section at the bottom (with even those scant criticisms being refuted in the same paragraph), but should be handled in the main body of the article. I see no reason why the majority of "Criticisms" is relegated to a separate article, either. Merge, and use it to make the article something else than a hagiography for fans. --Plek 13:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really spot on criticism - it would be awesome if all articles on games/books/tv shows included all this sort of info.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 03:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per Plek. It's much too in-universe; it needs to give a much more general overview of all aspects of the game, not just the gameplay itself. Trebor 18:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose {{unreferenced}} tag in the "deviation" section. Not everything is cited. Perhaps this should go to GA/R as well? Hbdragon88 08:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, esp. Dmz5's point about lack of wider context. Semperf 22:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is particularly one section that is disturbing me. A section with no references and in bad quality? Please rectify the problems asap. Terence Ong 09:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The article is messy and there's violet boxes that says it might not meet wikipedia's content policies.--Superplaya 00:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Atlanta, Georgia

• Archive of former nomination

It has been acclaimed as a quality article on the talk page, is written with power and neutrality, and has been nominated for some of Wikipedia's highest honors. Why not feature it? Tom Danson 05:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Well, whole sections lack citations (including many specific statistics that need verification), and there are a few citation needed tags sprinkled around. References are not properly formatted; almost all of them are just URLs. Refer to peer review for further improvement. Gzkn 05:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - (edit conflict) It's great, but at a glance: the crime section is still tagged as a stub, the universities section under Education is just a list disguised as a paragraph, more cites are still needed, and most of the existing cites aren't in a proper format. There's many large swaths of text but the prose isn't interesting enough to compel readers (me, at least) to read it, you know? Carson 05:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose: as an editor who did pretty significant overhauls to the article over the last few months, I say it still has a long way to go. I bear responsibility for many of the faulty cites, but put them in hurriedly because most of the article, when I first began editing it, had no cites at all. More corroboration — and, as the editor above points out, better prose — can make a difference, but for now, the article needs work. —GGreeneVa 06:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, 1c. Needs a lot more referencing. Trebor 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm confused didn't Restoration literature just appear on the front page? That had no inline citations. Harvey100 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm, yeah. I doubt that would pass these days, but citation standards were lower then. I think in any article of a reasonable length, footnote referencing is the only way to do it; I don't want to have to search through all the references to find out where a specific fact is mentioned. Trebor 12:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Trebor (needs better references) Semperf 22:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Arsenal Stadium

Seems like a well written article with most of the work done by a user who made most of the Arsenal F.C. featured article. Has a lot of info about pretty much anything associated with the stadium and it can pretty much be locked IMO after the stadium is finally knocked down since there's nothing else to add. Yonatanh 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is a good start, but needs a little more work to become a featured article. And since it is going to be torn down, doesnt mean that there is nothing else to add, just f.y.i. Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 02:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose refs are inconsistent, some have retrieve dates linked, some not, some have years, some not. All should be full dates and linked.Rlevse 03:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak oppose - I'm the user who has contributed most to this article, but I don't think the quality of the writing or the scope of coverage quite yet meets FA standard. I would have liked to go through a peer review, and sorting out all the tiny details that need sorting to turn a GA into an FA, before I would be happy for nominating it as an FAC. Qwghlm 08:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Architecture needs expansion. Lead is inadequate summary of article WP:LEAD. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Gladiator

I think it fits the criteria, and should be Featured or at least A-class. Neddyseagoon - talk 14:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose It's strikingly short of references. Five footnotes is not nearly enough for an article of this length. MLilburne 14:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - per MLilburne. Further, in the Books section, the publishing details of the books are given. They should be set in Further reading. This article has a long way to go before it can even be considered as a featured article. Jeffpw 15:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose As per above. Also intro doesn't comply with WP:Lead. First image has a deletion tag, worth checking if this was vandalism or someone's genuine concern. Mark83 17:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a Commons image--the history says "only deleting page--image is on Wikipedia commons". So I assume the image itself is not a problem...just the rest of the article. Jeffpw 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1c. Very short of references throughout. Trebor 18:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Lacking References per 1(c) and WP:CITE, separate the images in the section titled A typical combat. Improve the writing. Write a better lead. And that's just a start. —ExplorerCDT 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose The lead is way too short and as has been said it lacks references. Quadzilla99 00:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Jay-Z

As soon as I add a fair-use image to the main page, I will be a total supporter of it. Even now, I am a strong supporter, as he has become a world icon recently, and has been involved in many things. If anyone has any objections, please stick them at the bottom of this introduction. Tom Danson 06:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Only 17 in-line cites, external jumps in the text, references aren't formatted properly, too many external links, one sentence paragraphs, one image and it doesn't have fair use rationale, no image of him, article has 23 additive terms, vandalism in the "Rocawear and fashion" section from January 17, don't link solo years, spaces between references and punctuation, Discography should list his albums, I think I'm done. Refer to Peer review M3tal H3ad 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per above, not enough citations and many other concern. I would recomend a Peer review before trying another shot at FA. Arjun 16:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for referencing issues. Trebor 17:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Protected Jay-Z: Heavy vandalism from multiple sources" - Stable? Mark83 21:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Vandalism isn't considered part of the stability criterion. If it were, pages like United States and Africa would never be eligible for FA. — BrianSmithson 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Glad I left a comment and not an oppose then. Mark83 12:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - Lack of citations, unresolved vandal problems (saw vandalism when read article), and lack of images. --Ineffable3000 04:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - And a person being famous and an article being featured are unrelated. An article can be on the brink of deletion for non-notability and still be featured, while articles for many famous people are not featured (and not even Good Articles). --Ineffable3000 04:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object, vandalism problems, lack of inline citations and sources. Not time yet. Terence Ong 09:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Object - referencing issues per 1(c), and clearly fails stability per 1(e). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Atari 2600)

Has failed twice before: Here and here.

I'm giving it another go because I really can't see how this article can be improved any more than it already is. I am considering doing away with the "In popular culture" section, but I thought I'd better get some input on that first. Anyways, hopefully the third time's the charm.--SeizureDog 07:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Yes, please get rid of the "In popular culture"...it's basically trivia. Gzkn 08:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Done--SeizureDog 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: This looks really good on first glance, and I'll give it a more thorough look in the next couple of days. But can you make sure to list everything that was used as a reference under "References" rather than splitting things between "End notes" and "References" as the article currently does? Either that or get rid of the "References" section altogether and just rely on the End notes. I'd prefer the former, as was done with (for example) Donkey Kong (video game). Secondly, titles of newspaper and magazine articles should be in quotation marks but not italicized. — BrianSmithson 08:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I had them together before, but somebody changed it. I'll put it back together again. Though I'm not sure what you mean with Donkey Kong (video game), it's split up as two sections as well (just ordered the opposite way). I don't know what's going on with the italics thing, that's a problem with the template itself. Might want to bring it up at Template talk:Cite journal. It's protected btw, so I can't do anything about it.--SeizureDog 06:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I commented the first time around that message boards shouldn't be referenced, and that Production and sales aren't related and that the sales and critical reception info should be joined under a "Reception" section; both problems persist. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine. Refs in question were removed and additional sales section was added. I didn't put 'Sales' and 'Critical reception' under one section because I don't like creating sub-sub-sections (the '"The worst video game of all time"' and 'Other views' sections).--SeizureDog 06:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I'm uncomfortable with the removal of the popular culture section. All items there should be referenced, but it looked to me like at least most of them were notable. Everyking 08:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • That doesn't seem like a good reason to oppose though. I think the article is FA class with or without that section. And in reality, they weren't all that notable. Sure, it was kinda interesting, but not must know information. --SeizureDog 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I've had a chance to look at the article more closely now, and here are my concerns:
  • The article needs a copy edit. I've got a red-marked copy, and I'll happily do the copy editing, but first some other problems need taking care of.
    • Please do. It's really impossible for me to copyedit something I've read so many times. You get that mental block in your head.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a lot of weasely language in the article: "is seen by many", "is thought by some" in the lead, for example. Later, we have "It is an often stated bit of misinformation that . . . " Say who reports this misinformation: "According to sources X and Y, more copies of E. T. . . . ." Another weasel term: "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ." The first paragraph of "Critical response" is almost completely weaselfied prose. It should be rewritten with sources cited. "It is widely speculated that . . . " Ditto. "has led some people to believe that . . . " Ditto.
    • It may seem weasely in the lead, but those "many" and "some" are later defined in 'Critical response' section. Do I really need to double cite these?
      The information that is often misstated is mostly by unnotable people. Forum users and the like, which I'll get slapped for if I cite.
      How is "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ." a weasel statement? Actually, now that I look at most of these "weasel statements", they're really just using the same reference that is cited directly before of after it. This one for example is covered in the Snopes article used in the sentence directly before it (not to mention at least half of the articles on the subject).
      "It is widely speculated that..." IS cited.
      "Has led some people" is supported in the next sentence by the fact that Warshaw doubts it. Also, since Snopes wrote an article on it, that also shows that many people doubted it.
      I seriously don't understand how the hell these weasel words are supposed to be rephrased though. Someone else needs to do it. --SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, "double citing" would be good. The phrases "thought by some" and "considered by many" and the like should be removed from the article. One solution for the lead might be, "Critics claim that" or "Reviewers called it" or similar language. Since it's the lead, I can tolerate the vagueness there. The body should do away with even this degree of weaseliness. And if forum posters are misstating stuff, so what? They're non-notable as far as we're concerned. If the weasel words are using the references cited before or after, then change it to say that "Critic X says that blah blah blah". There's no need to be vague or try to sum up what "most critics" think. Give the reader names and let them decide for themselves. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Likewise, the caption about the title screen being described as the "best part of the game" should be rewritten to mention the source in the prose itself: "Joe Blow describes the title screen . . . "
    • I don't think sources should be worked into the prose unless it's someone/something people would know. Especially in this case. Even though Fragmaster is a reviewer for a notable site, saying "Fragmaster describes the title screen..." is going to sound very unreliable.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Then ditch the caption altogether. The source is the source no matter how we may try to hide it. Rather than using this guy's screen name (Fragmaster), mention the site instead: "A reviewer for X describes the title screen . . . " — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The lead should include some information on the gameplay so that it fully summarizes the article.
    • The first sentence of the very next section sums it up though. I'm not sure how to describe it in the lead without making the gameplay section starting off with a completely redundant statement mentioned just a few sentences back.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, but the lead is a summary of the whole article. Currently, it's not. I'm not asking for a lot of summarized information, just a brief sentenc or two that describes the goal of the game or the general set up. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Be careful not to mix up the player, who pushes buttons and works a console, and the on-screen character, who wanders about and looks for phone pieces. The article is mostly good about this, but there are a few places where these are mixed up.
    • Examples?--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "If the scientist catches E.T., the player is carried to the Washington D.C. screen . . ." is the only example I could find on a quick glance. I'll try to clean this up when I do the copy edit. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • We're told that choosing a higher difficulty level will "change . . . the conditions needed to call the spaceship." In what way? Is it possible to elaborate a bit without getting into GameFAQs territory?
    • From the manual:
      The RIGHT DIFFICULTY switch controls the speed of the humans. In the A position, the humans move faster than in the B position. The LEFT DIFFICULTY switch determines the landing conditions for the rescue ship. If the switch is in position A, Elliott cannot be present on the landing field when the rescue ship arrives. If the switch is in the B position, Elliott can be present when E.T. calls the ship and when it lands.
      Really minor stuff that I don't think needs to be mentioned.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd find a synonym for "Easter egg". That term is jargon used by DVD afficianados and gamers and sounds inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. In that section, I'd remove the editorializing about how Scott Warshaw's name being hidden is less notable than the graphic designer's name. It's not our place to make judgements; if the intials are there, say so, full stop.
    • It's jargon specific to the type of article it's in. Video game articles are allowed to use video game jargon.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Disagree. We have to make our articles accessible to a general readership. We should also use the professional-standard language expected in an encyclopedia, and a jargonny usage of "Easter egg" isn't. Further, what additional information is added by saying "the initials of E.Ts artist, Jerome Domurat, being hidden as an Easter egg" that isn't conveyed by "the initials of E.T.s artist, Jerome Domurat, being hidden on one of the screens"? — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The statement that E.T. was "one of two major video game releases . . . that sparked the video game crash of 1983" needs a source citation.
    • Man, these sort of things are a pain to cite. They're basically undebated, general knowledge stuff that's mentioned in at least half of the references, but I still have to find specific statements for them. Does every single sentence in this article need to be cited? Also see above, this is the same statement you mentioned with "It is often seen as onen of two. . . ."--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't get upset about it. If it's mentioned in several sources, just pick one and use it for the citation. But in this case, if it really is mentioned in most of the sources, you're right that it's probably okay to not source it. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Fans are not notable. Particularly, anonymous fans on forums have no place in an encyclopedia article. Remove all references to fans or gamers in general thinking this or that unless they can be backed up by reliable sources (i.e., not forum posts).
    • Didn't I do that already? What did I miss?--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I was working from a printout when I wrote my comments. Must've been from before your purged that information. However, there are still a few places where various opinions are attributed to "gamers". These should be removed or replaced by "gaming magazines" or the like if that's what you mean. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • "Official Bruce Enten" . . . do we have a more specific title for him? "Official" is pretty vague.
    • Just some guy from Atari. Newspaper article really doesn't say.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Maybe reword to "Bruce Enten, an Atari representative" or something. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • ". . . but subsequent reports have generally linked . . . " Subsequent reports by whom? Name the sources.
    • Well, the next sentence for one. Also almost every single report on the subject.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Suggest adding sources still: "subsequent reports by newspapers X, Y, and Z have . . . . " — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As for the pop culture section, I agree that it was redundant and is better done away with. A video game about E.T. is by its very nature popular culture, so it's an odd section title to boot. That said, I think some of the items could conceivably be weaved into the main flow of the prose. The more notable ones anyway. For example, when discussing the dumping, you could say, "This situation was parodied by So-and-So in his music video for such-and-such song."
  • See if you can't eliminate the "See also" section. The video game crash is already linked above, so doesn't need to be see-alsoed. The other two could be worked into the prose as piped links.
    • I think it's good for the extra emphasis though. And having no see also section seems unnatural for an article to me.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Still think it's redundant with the links in the article itself. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Regarding the seperation of sources into "References" and "End notes" that I mentioned above, I meant that if something is mentioned in an end note, the full-form reference should be listed under "References". Currently, for example, Note 18 refers to an article that is not mentioned under "References". There are many more examples of this.
    • The format currently is that printed sources get full details in references and shorten in endnotes, while websites are just in endnotes. Since print sources are generally considered 'better' than those that are purely online, the extra attention is given to them.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Sources are sources despite whether they are in print or on the web. We need to treat them consistently. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Do away with the direct quotes from sources if you're not going to use them in the main article (Notes 1, 13, 22, 23, and 24). It should be enough to just do a regular-old-plain-vanilla footnote that gives the source and page number. I like the quotes from the creators etc., but those are appropriately placed in the main prose.
    • As the main editor of this article, I'm going to argue that's my preference and that it shouldn't be done away with without good reason. I feel that including quotes helps people who want to verify the article. Instead of having to scan the entire link for what is aplicable, they can read just what's actually being cited.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Still think it looks weird and is a potential fair use violation. I mean, why directly quote when you're paraphrasing anyway? There's no need to do both. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• So, there it is. I think this article has a chance at FA status if some TLC is put into it while it's at FAC. Good luck! — BrianSmithson 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Mostly seems like stuff I don't know how to fix. Fun. I hate trying to figure out how to cite common knowledge.--SeizureDog 15:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Hopefully I've clarified some of the points. I don't see why this article can't pass its candidacy if it's just fixed up a bit more. — BrianSmithson 07:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Kanon

This article has gone through a large amount of revision in the past few months, and especially in the last few weeks until it was finally granted Good Article status on January 18, 2007; I was the major contributor during this time. While I feel that it statisfies the Featured Article criteria, I know that the issue on 1.b may be the biggest thing that prevents this article from achieving FA. While this visual novel has never been translated into English, its understandable to look for Japanese sources and reviews, however on the case of reviews, much of them are either too difficult to find, or simply are just too few on the internet to track down. If the magazines were in hand then it would be easier, but sadly that is not the case. On another note, this article has had a peer review, though this was during the stage when it was going for GA. The issues brought up in the peer review were dealt with and resolved.

• Nominate and Support. --(十八) 10:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Commment THere are several entire sections with no refs.Rlevse 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Many portions are deficient in inline citations.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object As per Dwaip and looking through the article, I think it needs a few more citations. However I think it satisfies the 1.b. part, its the sourcing that concerns me. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment With the issue on the number of citations, would this include the plot and characters sections as well? I can't image how many sources could be cited for those sections if any. I do see your point on other subsection in the Adaptations section however.--(十八) 05:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are some media related FAs which do not have any citations in plot, for example, Tenebrae (film). However, adaptation section surely needs citations. Also, please provide further information on sources (publisher, authorship etc) whenever available. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I suppose the article should be featured on February 1st to maximize its impact on sales of the PSP release for that date? Wikipedia lives to serve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.186.60.198 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment I'm sorry, but the English Wikipedia would have no bearing on the sales of a Japanese PSP game, and even if it did, that would just be circumventing the FA process.--(十八) 01:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Tenacious D

This article is heavily cited, and I think adheres to the stringent Wiki policy. There are no unsupported assertions, and there is no POV (ie this is not a fan page - the fact the Tenacious D in: The Pick of Destiny bombed is made clear).

Tenacious D Fans (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Whilst heavily sourced, some of the headings appear too thin and not currently worthy to stand alone. I'm talking specifically about "Friendship", "Misattribution and imitators", and "Politics". Perhaps you should consider expanding on those short paragraphs? Schizmatic 22:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Object: Many things to fix:

• There are a lot of external links, leave only official sites.
• Some references are not properly cited, use the template:cite web for those.
• Samples shouldn't be grouped in the end of the article, see wikipedia:music samples.
• Some images don't have fair use rationale, one isn't even licenced.
• Remove the covers from the discography section.
• As Schizmatic said, expand the stub sections, also remove the word "the" from some of the headings.
• The references should be cited after a punctuation mark.

I'll finish to read the article tomorrow. Cheers. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed some of the issues you have discussed. I have removed the unofficial external links, regrouped the samples, included fair use rationales, removed the covers, removed the "the" from the headings. Thanks for looking at the article. I will try to expand the smaller paragraphs as well. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT. Introduction does not conform with WP:LEAD, should be expanded to summarize article per policy. Too many stub length sections, some sections starting with definite articles contrary to WP:MOS, and one- or two-sentence paragraphs (bad style). Section titled "other appearances" reads like a trivia section, bullet points should be transformed into prose. Style problems such as this throughout article does not meet criteria 1(a) requirement for "brilliant and compelling" prose. Several citations are incomplete, failing requirements of 1(c) and WP:CITE. I'd prefer the "See also" section before "References." Also fails 1(b) as it is lacking any substantial discussion about audience and critical reactions to Tenacious D. —ExplorerCDT 07:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I will try to include critical response to Tenacious D. Tenacious D Fans (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Stub sections and paragraphs are bad. The lead includes comparisons to bands that aren't substantiated later in the article. Bullet point lists are varied with prose in "Other appearances" (the latter is better). Prose could do with general work throughout. Trebor 14:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Trans fat

In my opinion, this article is now comprehensive, sourced, reads well, and is stable. I have recently made a pass through the article to update references to current citation templates. This is my first FAC after many months of work on the article, and I'm ready to make changes as required to bring it up to spec. Self-nomination. -- cmh^TC 01:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comments. Per MOS, it needs an image at the top right of the article. Some of the sections in the lede could be combined - right now it looks like there are five paragraph, but it could be combined to two. More sources are needed, IMO. Nine entire paragraphs are missing sources. European Union and United Kingdom sections in Public response and regulation are stubby. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the feedback. I'm not sure that I see where in MOS it says the article needs an image at the top right. I'll work on the paragraphs as you suggest. As far as sources are concerned, my understanding is that citations are not required for statements easily verified by adults. Can you identify specific facts that require citation? I'll work on the public response sections. -- cmh^TC 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose

1. Sloppy paragraph structuring - many are single sentences (including the some in the lead)
2. The text of the lead all over the place the sections also seem oddly out of order history before chemistry etc;
3. US section of the response section is disproportionately long and risks degenerating into a list of places that have banned TF - oddly doesn't mention BanTransFats - who by my understanding initiated most of the early lawsuits that led to the removal of TF from oreos etc and led to major public awareness of the fat in the US;
4. Food industry response is entirely US-cenric - what about Europe and Asia - in Australia where labeling isn't required several fast food companies are removing trans fats anyway.
5. The article doesn't mention that so far there is no RDI for trans fats set by any government authority (worldwide as far as I know) - there is a long section about what the NAS recommends - again totally US-centric; what do other international scientific/health/researchers think?
6. A table showing countries where trans fat is a significant part of the diet would be an informative inclusion.
7. Finally the trans fat is not as simple as the article makes out - the article never mentions that there are good trans fats - like conjugated linoleic acid - trans fat is just a configuration - it really needs someone with some lipid chemistry knowledge to wok on this.

--Peta 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments on the article. Some of the comments I agree with, and some I disagree with. I would appreciate some more of your thoughts on some of these points.

1. I'll work on this. My style does tend to run to short paragraphs, but I should be able to fix them up.
2. I'll respond to this below.
3. I agree that there are too many places discussed, Chicago should go as a redundant city. New York is obvious to stay, but what about Tiburon? BanTransFats was an advocacy group behind the Tiburon project and the Oreo lawsuit, both of which are discussed in the article. There is an external link to them as well. Do you think that BTF merit mention in the US public regulation section itself?
4. My thought was to only list companies who by their actions have advanced the trans fat debate itself, or who were sued, etc. Otherwise it was simply a list of grocery stores and food outlets. I'm not in the US, but it seems that those guys have really been the driving force on the corporate level. Do you have any suggestions for how to balance this section?
5. With respect, on this point I disagree. The NAS board is a scientific consensus board that does not represent a US view. Their assessment is used at least in Canada as well. The RDI is a construct of the NAS, and the article says there is no RDI and explains why. The section continues with WHO recommendations. I don't understand how all this can be a US-only perspective. In my view, the NAS, as a major scientific review document, is an ironclad source for statements that many would like to object to.
6. I'll look at this. My first reaction is that except for Denmark it is likely to include all countries with processed foods.
7. On this point I disagree entirely. I would claim references 3 and 10 as comprehensive, scientific review sources that are specific that neither animal-sourced trans nor plant-sourced trans have benefits. Source 3 states that it is less of a health concern, but this may be due to the lower intake levels. All this information is presented in the article (last paragraph of nutritional guidelines section). -- cmh^TC 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object this ought to be an article about a class of molecules that happen to be the subject of a nutritional and political controvery. As written, it's an article about a nutritional and political controversy that happens to have a chemistry section. The chemistry section should precede discussion of nutritional guidelines. The chemistry section is also overly simplistic and, as Peta says, needs to be edited by someone who is familiar with the subject. I'd also like to see the health risks section reviewed by someone who is conversant with the medical literature and capable of judging the reliability of individual studies - eg the 'one recent study' that linked trans fat to prostate cancer. The statement 'one recent study linked <class of compounds> to <medical symptom>' is almost never false, but not always relevant either. However, if I may object to a comment, there's nothing in the MOS that states 'all articles must have an image in the top right corner', nor is it an FA criterion, nor is it important at this point. Work on the layout after the content. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your remarks. I'm asking for more feedback about the structuring of the document below. I hesitated about leaving the prostate cancer reference, but it's all that's left of a huge blob of uncited crap on quack theories of what trans fat does. Honestly, I'd like to drop everything here except for the CHD section, do you think this makes sense? Regarding the chemistry section, I deliberately went for something that would be (I hoped) easy to understand for lay readers. Do you have any suggestions about keeping a balance between an article accessible to lay readers yet with enough detail? Perhaps my suggestion below would help? -- cmh^TC 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Without having read anything from the actual studies, I'd support chopping the 'other effects' section. I don't know how reliable some of those individual studies are - Alzheimer's disease has successfully adopted a fairly strict standard on what types of studies merit inclusion in the article; maybe adopting a similar standard and evaluating the existing citations according to that would be helpful. Having an established inclusion criterion would also be useful for combatting the inevitable edit creep this article will suffer. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's some reason to doubt the Chavarro et al study, it should be kept. It's important that people can find out what is backed by science and which are just assertions by quacks. Nunquam Dormio 21:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Just want to affirm what Opabinia said. The most logical layout of this article seems to be: Chemistry --> Presence in food --> Health risks --> Public reaction and nutritional guidelines. History could fit in a number of places -- perhaps break up the history section and distribute is among the other sections. Also agree that the article doesn't necessarily need an image at the top right, not sure where that is coming from. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on Article Organization Thank you to the users who have brought up the organization. I gave this a lot of thought when doing the major re-organization and decided that most readers would be coming to the page to get basic information about trans fats and find out information about presence in food and health guidelines. The chemical information is important too, but in my view was something that fewer readers would want to consume. My concern is that if the chemistry section is moved to the front it will be too technical and will stop readers before they get to the everyday information about trans fats. I am still worried about this, particularly in view of the fact that it seems the depth of the chemistry section is insufficient.

One thought I have is that summary style could be used to break out a technical article on the chemistry (perhaps at Trans fatty acid) that could build on the information currently at Trans fat; the current article could then shorten its treatment of the topic but move it to the front to provide a better organization. Would there be support for this move? -- cmh^TC 13:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a split might be in order but I would put the chemistry information at trans fat with a redirect from trans fatty acid, and the newsy nutrition stuff at trans fats in nutrition or similar. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

While I understand your concern, I think that readers will mostly be capable of skipping to the section they want to read if they have a focused interest. That's why there's a table of contents. Another organizational concern I noticed is that in the by-country listings, they are obviously organized alphabetically, but Canada's section mentions Denmark, which is discussed later. Perhaps a non-alphabetical structure would be superior. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose If the mechanisms contributing to CHD are well understood, you need to explain what these are. The article as a whole is seriously lacking in its coverage of the biochemistry of trans fats. The chemistry section does a good job in explaining what trans fats are, but there is no link between this information and the list of health effects. You need to cover how the body metabolises trans fats, how this differs from unsaturated and cis-unsaturated fats and how these differences cause disease. TimVickers 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Monte Ne

Good article about an ill fated planned resort town in Northwest Arkansas built in the early 1900s. I believe the articles continuity is pretty good. I used a book as the main source the article and cited it in the references. There are only a few websites on Monte Ne so footnotes are not very plentiful but could be improved. Otherwise, I think the article is ready for FAC. --The_stuart 16:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Needs a thorough copyedit. For Pete's sake, your third sentence is a fragment and your fourth sentence has an incorrect "it's." Andrew Levine 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Very short of citations. (Citing your main source in the references is not enough; it needs to be cited in the footnotes too). In particular there are several direct quotes that really need footnoting. MLilburne 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Not enough citation, not enough variety in sources, bad writing, bad grammar, the prose meanders and rambles. Thoroughly unready for FAC at this time. —ExplorerCDT 20:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article needs a thorough copy editing, as has been pointed out already. To amplify on the citation problems already mentioned, an article needs at least 1 reference per paragraph, and additional ones for assertions that could be challenged. This article has three inline citations, and entire sections are unreferenced. Additionally, your refs are not properly formatted, and the author of the referenced articles are not mentioned, nor is the retrieval date included. I found it an interesting read, but it is not FA ready at this point. Jeffpw 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Per all of the above. Try peer review. It's an interesting article though. Would love to see it as an FA in the future. Gzkn 10:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per all above. This wouldn't even make GA right now because of the few and unformatted refs. Try Peer Review first. I think FA potential is there, but not right now.Rlevse 11:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - If you used that book as a reference, you can easily use it as an inline citation. Not all footnotes need to be links to internet sources. By the way, I reformatted your footnoted and added the ISBN to the reference for you. Jeffpw 11:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: An uncut diamond of an article! It's a classic tale of human hubris and tragedy, and I agree it has all the potential of becoming an FA. I did some quick copyediting to weed out the most gregarious grammar and punctuation gaffes, but it still needs lots more of it (in addition to all that was mentioned above). It might be a worthy task for the League of Copyeditors. Good luck! --Plek 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the suggestion, I'd never heard of that project! --The_stuart 14:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• WITHDRAW I'm withdrawing my nomination pending further copyediting. --The_stuart 14:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] History of the battery

Nominated by User:Kurzon. Gzkn 03:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose even without a nomination statement or signature from a nominator; as it needs more references and the intro is too short. Daniel Case 02:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Good start, but you should probably let the peer review run its course. Gzkn 04:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Lead is too short, some sections have no references, peer review is only 1 day old. I would suggest withdrawing this nomination, at least until the peer review is complete and its suggestions have been implemented. Kaldari 05:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Phoenix2 06:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Try GA. Rlevse 12:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Not ready. I echo the above reasons. Also, remove the size/pixel parameters from the thumbnailed images to accomodate user preferences. —ExplorerCDT 20:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. While the article does have some references, a lot more are needed! -- Underneath-it-All 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This article doesn't give enough information and is in a way choppy to read. It is more of a timeline then an article. Chickyfuzz123^{(user talk)} 02:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Centennial Light

Dec 2006 FAC.

Done some work on the continuity of the prose as suggested and should be consistent now. The article is as through as it could possibly be on the subject of a 100 year old light bulb. Not sure what else could be done, but am open to constructive criticism and suggestions for getting it up to FAC.--The_stuart 03:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object refs not in a consistent format, suggest cite format. ALso, this is extrememly short, can it be expanded? Rlevse 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Could you please attach retrieval dates to the online references? This is really helpful when links go dead.--Rmky87 17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Access dates have been added. --The_stuart 17:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm worried that so much of the article cites only centennialbulb.org, and this is kind of connected with the length of the article and the amount of information it presents. This may be one of those topics that doesn't have enough source material to generate a Featured Article. Why not make it a Good Article instead? Melchoir 01:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The article appears to be citing the website mainly as an archive of other materials (the refs, btw, ought to reflect the original sources, and some of them do). So I don't see that as a problem. As far as the length, that doesn't strike me as a major problem since the article appears to be comprehensive. However, it might be possible to merge with Longest-lasting light bulbs, spruce up what is already there, and thus achieve an article of equal quality that has a bit more beef. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The article Longest-lasting light bulbs was created because of a complaint that they had nothing to do with The Centennial Light. --The_stuart 17:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Leaning towards objection but can't find a substantial reason to object but no compelling reasons to support...as I have to agree with the above and some of the unresolved issues of the previous FAC. Personally, I don't even think this is notable enough to even be an article on Wikipedia. After all, it's not the only long-lasting light bulb, so I don't see what makes this unique enough to be notable on its own. Perhaps taking this to Peer Review (as recommended but ignored in the previous FAC) would give you some pointers on where to go. Because while being a article about a novel story, this is like a warm-and-fuzzy/personal interest consolation piece they fit in the last minute of the nightly news broadcast on slow news days (something that was Charles Kuralt's specialty), and doesn't have enough bulk or notability to merit being an FAC. Though, I will say the lead section is too small. It barely makes the perfunctory three sentences to make a decent paragraph and doesn't prepare you sufficiently for the rest of the article. —ExplorerCDT 20:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Although there are other long lasting light bulbs The Centennial Light is THE longest lasting light bulb, and (as throughly explained in the article) has been recognized as such by every major major news outlet, several elected officials (incluiding the president of the United States) and governing bodies, as well as all the entities that keep records of world records. Your opinion of it's notability is POV and therefore irrelevant, not to mention the fact that we have FAs on stranger and more obscure topics. I do agree this article is lacking bulk, but I'm not sure what else can be said about the bulb that hasn't already been said. --The_stuart 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
    • My late great-grandmother got birthday cards from the President of the United States, mentions in the newspapers, received proclamations from elected officials, and even appeared on Television because of her age. Does that make her worthy of an article here at Wikipedia, or at the extreme, an FA? Nope. This is the equivalent of a circus sideshow. Only it's a little more humble than the bearded lady. I'll not object, but I won't support. I just think this is more a candidate for AFD than for FA. And your protest doesn't negate the fact that I suggested you improve the lead. —ExplorerCDT 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Submit it to AFD, then. If it isn't deleted there, there is no excuse for it to not be an FA, if it meets the quality requirements. Notability is not a part of WP:WIAFA, nor is subject matter. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I probably should, and likely will, as for AFD, why I don't believe it's FA material, see below. —ExplorerCDT 22:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object, due to inconsistent formatting of references. Try also adding a very brief summary of the history of the bulb as the second paragraph of the lede. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT. After much consideration, I've shifted my above comment to an objection for the following reasons (some criteria, some not): (1) 2c a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents implies more bulk than this article currently presents. While it may comply with "appropriate length" in criteria 4, this article is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified stub. (2) WP:LEAD. The lead section has not been improved despite above comments. However, it is hard to get a comprehensive lead out of an article that could be characterized as little better than a stub. (3) Under 1(a) I don't find the prose to be brilliant or compelling. (4) The references are not complete, nor do they include access dates, per WP:CITE, and are inconsistently formatted. While it may be "factually accurate" per 1(c), it is not compliant with the terms of the MOS and other Wikipedia policies (criteria 2) (5) I firmly believe that this article belongs in AFD for which I'll possibly recommend it after this FAC is concluded (depends on my time, etc.). While I'll leave it's fate to those at AFD, I'll vote to merge this with the long-lasting light bulbs article. Something more worthy of AFD, even if a well-referenced stub, by principle, shouldn't be an FA. —ExplorerCDT 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain with Comment I am surprised that anyone would be such a deletionist that they would want this article deleted. I contributed to this article because I have seen the light bulb featured on multiple reliable nationwide (America) television programs over the past 5 to 10 years. It is easily notable, and its notability is verified. Royalbroil ^T : C 17:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: This isn't a matter of it not being "notable", it's a matter of this being a tried-and-true story that is all nice and warm and fuzzy and can fill a few minutes on a slow news day. We don't have articles for every one of these stories (like the kid who used the profits from his lemonade stand to buy tents for the homeless or toys for cancer-stricken kids), nor do we have articles for every circus sideshow, bearded lady, tossed midget, etc. When we start having articles for The World's Largest Collection of the Smallest Copies of the World's Largest Things (it exists, near Wilson, Kansas, USA), perhaps this article will merit inclusion, only by then though, Wikipedia will have gone batty.—ExplorerCDT 18:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What is the kid's name, I'd like to start an article on him! --The_stuart 14:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, a story being "nice and warm and fuzzy" isn't a reason for deletion. This is clearly notable and as far as I can see, doesn't conflict with any other policies. Trebor 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the time being. I think it's pretty comprehensive, and I firmly disagree with any arguments based on it being short; that's not an actionable complaint. The lead could do with a bit of work, as could the reference formatting, but it's not far off. Trebor 14:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] New York City

Previous FAC's: December 2004, April 2006, July 2006, September 2006 and November 2006

• I' am nominating this article for the featured article as it has been on wikipedia for a long time. It is perfectly detailed, citated and written with a heavy range of contributors, and it has an intresting figure to be the featured article. It would make a very good featured article Rasillon 14:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

AGAIN, the archived vs. new versions for this FAC are all FUBAR - need to be fixed, and I don't have time. I hope others will hold off on responses until FAC is submittted and archived correctly, and the talk page templates are corrected. Update: thanks for fixing, Tutmosis SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only two citations for the whole of the History subsection and one for Geography. There are also issues with the prose; just looking at the lead:

• one of the world's major global cities - looking at the (loose) definition of global cities, I don't see what "major" means. In fact, according to the Loughborough study, New York is a full service world city which is above a major one.
• There's a reuse of major in the second sentence - couldn't a different word be used.
• The financial sway of New York is mentioned in both the first and third paragraph, which seems like unnecessary repetition and makes the structure hard to follow.
• The phrase "is also" is used four times in three paragraphs, usually redundantly.

It's a good article with lots of information, but I think it needs more citations and a thorough copyedit before becoming featured. Trebor 19:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged several words in the first few paragraphs to avoid the repitition of "major" and "is also", but I'm not sure how to address the mentioning of the financial sway in the first and third paragraphs--although I really don't see that as a problem. The first paragraph is basically a small summary of the following more detailed paragraphs in the introduction, because New York City being a cultural center is addressed in the opening paragraph as well, and then discussed in more detail in the third. If you have any other suggestions on how to work on this, I'm willing to do it, but I really think that it is worthy of being a featured article as it is now. Irish Pearl 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I swear this wasn't here last time I looked...anyway, I find it slightly excessive that the first paragraph in the lead is a summary of the rest of the lead is a summary of the rest of the article. See below (and above) for why I don't think it's featured quality. Trebor 20:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the first paragraph just summarizes what follows (although I was the one that made that statement) but I think it is also answering the "global city" question. When I was looking over the article again after I read your previous response, trying to find a way to explain the "global city" definition, the two following sentences are basically it. A world-wide cultural, as well as economical/finiancial center. The next two paragraphs just justify those statements. They may be a bit wordy, but I don't think that they are anymore so than most other featured articles, but I may have just not read enough of them. Irish Pearl 20:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm seeing major POV problems after doing just a quick scan of the article. The crime section only talks about the recent decrease in crime. A reader would get the idea that NYC has always been very safe. That section needs to be a summary of the whole history of crime in NYC, not a summary of the 1990s. --- RockMFR 21:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. I think the article is plenty detailed and covering all aspects of the city. There's been a good number of contributers and I fail to see any glaring problems in any section of the article. For New York City being a "major" global city--I understood it to be that New York has consistantly ranked high among most studies. As for the issue with the section on Crime in New York City--isn't there a seperate page for that anyway? The citations and details on the History of Crime in New York City are both on that page, and I would assume this article really only focuses present day, and for that, the city IS safe today. Irish Pearl 18:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ranked high at what? I think it's a fairly vague term, and something better could be used to sum up why it's important. My other objections still stand: the History section (and many others) are almost entirely uncited and the prose needs work throughout. Trebor 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Unimproved over previous failed FACs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object - A few concerns. The majority of the History & Geography sections not referenced per 1(c). Also the crime section probably just fails 1(d), as it only mentions the recent decreases in crime since the 1990s, and doesnt seem to present itself from a balanced viewpoint. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] Holden VE Commodore

This article is currently a GA-Class article, and I believe that the article is now good enough to be awarded featured article status. Editing has mainly been undertaken by myself and User:VectorD, but other editors remain noteworthy. OSX 00:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a great article, but it lacks pictures of all the models. If someone added 3-5 more pictures of the inside and the motor then I would nominate it. Still needs some work.Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• ResponseThere is really no need for pictures of every model, as visually some variations only have the most subtle changes to their preceding or subsequent models, i.e. a different wheel design etc. A picture of the engine used in the car can be seen at here, although this image shows the engine of a Cadillac STS, which is basically the same engine with a different cover. Interior shots are difficult to obtain as the car has only been available for a short period of time, and are hard to find. Give it time and these shots will become available. OSX 23:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object: Image captions need work. Also, as to placement of images: the jarring back and forth left-and-right of the images combined with one section having three images crammed in while other sections have none lead me to objections because of the lack of balance and aesthetics. Writing (per 1(a)) is not compelling or brilliant. It reads like a list of specificiations. Entire awards section (a whopping 4 sentences) sounds like a run-of-the-mill auto commercial with The Holden VE Commodore SS also claimed Motor magazine's 2006 Bang For Your Bucks award for best value performance car.[37] As well as successfully achieving these awards, the VE has also been nominated for the 2007 World Car of the Year awards,[38] and the 2006 Wheels Car of the Year award. I'd rather have a list than a car commercial. Way too many citations breaking right in the middle of sentences, against the guidelines in WP:CITE. —ExplorerCDT 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Have fun fixing those mistakes above, I will try to help.!?!?!!Senators^{Talk | Contribs} 02:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done The issues listed above have now been resolved, if you feel that further improvements can be made please do so. OSX 08:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• No, they are not. Not by a long shot. Continued OBJECTION because nothing has really been remedied. Your little "tweaking" of the article did not satisfy the cause for my objections. The writing is still quite incredibly dull throughout the entire piece, several asserted facts and statements STILL uncited, several sections still stubbish (especially "Specification Levels")...and did I already say the writing was dull? Two-sentences together or just one sentence alone do not a paragraph make. That's bad form. Read Strunk & White's Elements of Style Also, remove all the size/pixel parameters from thumbnailed images. Each user's preferences determine that given their browser/resolution settings. Also, because of user preferences, you don't need to edit dates back and forth from [[10 November]] to [[November 10]]-- you just wasted time doing that. Making the awards section a list is a slight improvement, but not a preferable one. Image captions need to be better written, more descriptive. (e.g. "front-side view of a VE Calais" isn't a good caption). Image placement is still unwieldy and unbalance...and from several combinations of screen size and resolution parameters. It reads like a third-grade reading level interspersed with factoids from the specifications sections of a sales manual. Largely though, my concern is that the writing is far from the brilliant and compelling required by criteria 1(a) and until the article is written to be brilliant and compelling, it ought not to pass FA.—ExplorerCDT 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response Could you please elaborate on some of the suggestions made above. Firstly it is difficult to get images to go under the "Market", "Issues and criticisms" and "Awards" sections. Do you have any suggestions about images that could be found to be placed under these sections? Secondly. You say that the "Awards" section being made into list is a slight improvement, but not a preferable one. What would you suggest as being the ideal way to present this information? And thirdly, you still seem to dislike the image captions. What would you suggest they say? There is only so much information that you can get out the images to go into the captions. If you think more needs to be included, please go ahead and say so. OSX 10:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Reply: You could disperse any of the images you already have (some of which are stacked 3 in one section) amongst sections currently lacking. There's no need to get new ones. Also, you have to get past the "well, the image has to match the content of the section" because that's (as far as I know) is not nor has ever been a requirement or a guideline. It's just a matter of aesthetics and balance. Imagine the aesthetical issue of image placement as a weight on a scale: You can't expect to put three things on one side of the scale and not one on the other side and expect it to come out balanced. As for captions: something more descriptive and elaborative than "front side view of model". What's so special about the view? What features are accented by the angle chosen? (objective descriptions, of course). The possibilities are only limited by your imagination. Please address my concerns with the writing though. That's far more important than the image captions. (If I have time tomorrow, I'll look at what I can do with image captions I don't like and moving images around. Big If though.). I can live with an "awards" list. Even approve it. But, if I were writing this article, I wouldn't have use most of the heirarchical section structure that the writers of the article have used and I would have incorporated the information very differently. —ExplorerCDT 10:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Citations in the middle of sentences are fine. WP:CITE should say nothing to the contrary. If it does, it ought to be removed. Hopefully no useful information was lost when this was "corrected" in the article. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You really don't read WP:CITE and see how it should be applied given the circumstances of the article. Under "How to cite sources" section: Footnotes come after punctuation: some words, phrases or facts must be referenced mid-sentence; footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation, without a space.. After you view what the author is citing, you'd see that several of this article's citations don't reference exclusively "words, phrases, or facts" in the middle of the sentence, and thus properly belong at the end of the sentence where they need to be moved. Several citations within the article are improperly cited. You should have noticed that if you didn't give it a perfunctory once-over. Spending five seconds on an article, without checking each of the sentences being cited with the cited materials themselves (which your dismissal of my critique indicates) makes you uninformed to pass such cursory judgments...and as such you might not be best informed to contribute to FAC. I spend several minutes reviewing each article I review here at FAC. You might have spent 30 seconds given the depth of your reply. That's counter-productive to the task at hand. —ExplorerCDT 10:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • First sentence: Why the comma after "fourteenth"? Consider spelling out numbers of more than one digit ("14th"). "Full-size car" with the hyphen, so pipe the link to that wrongly named article.

• Object—1a and 2a. The inadequate lead has a number of faults in just a few sentences, indicating that the entire text needs serious massaging:
  • How many official presentations were there? Why "first"?
  • Having said it's an Australian car, you don't need the name of the country after "Melbourne".
  • "Holden's first Commodore ever to be built upon an entirely new design"—"Upon" is old-fashioned now. What's wrong with "on"?
  • The lead should be an overview; some of its contents are not sufficiently big-picture to include. It's too short.
  • Title: "Development history"—nah, "History of development", please.
  • What's a "clean sheet Commodore"? The double adjective must be hyphenated.
  • Why is "2010" linked. It's a furphy.
  • "a price tag around AU$35,000"—Insert "of".

No, it's not written to the required "professional" standard. Tony 00:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question I have fixed up most of the problems mentioned above, except for the complete article rewrite. I have already fixed up some of the wording, but much more needs to be done. Is there anything that else that can be done to improve the article before I start rewriting entire section? Any suggestions would be appreciated. OSX 03:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 06:17, 31 January 2007.

[edit] NeXT

First FAC nomination - Peer review

2nd nomination. Resolves issues from the last FAC nomination. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Well referenced, good prose, well written, concise and easy to read, includes images (with correct license/source information). Covers a wide range of information on the subject. Tidy ToC, not too many External Links. Conforms with Manual of Style and all references are formatted properly using Cite templates. — Wackymacs 15:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support. New sections on corporate culture and impact on the computer industry add context. Tomhormby 15:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support, already supported the article last time and I was quite suprised it failed. - Tutmosis 19:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment "Ibids" are very much frowned upon, so I changed them in case someone shoves a reference in between 5 and 6.--Rmky87 20:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Source verification: [2]
  1. Apple Computer (7 February 1997). Apple Computer, Inc. Finalizes Acquisition of NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 25 June 2006. → Goes to a webarchive search result and it is empty. Link to the original site is broken. Please replace this source.
  2. Paul Rand (HTML). logolog (2004). → A blog. Unreliable.
  3. Steve Jobs, NeXT employees. (1986). The Entrepreneurs Part 1 [TV]. → YouTube link. Its license cannot be verified.
  4. Steve Jobs, NeXT employees. (1986). The Entrepreneurs Part 2 [TV]. → YouTube link. Its license cannot be verified.
  5. frogdesign timeline: 1987 NeXT. frogdesign. → A commercial website; the link goes to the main page (spam?).
  6. NeXT history (French). → Very uninformative citation.
  7. PC Magazine, 11 September 1990, Volume 9, Number 15. → Title? Author?
  8. SERIAL ARCHIVE LISTINGS for NeXTWORLD. The Online Books Page. → What is the online books page? Who is the publisher?
  9. NeXTWorld Magazines. ChannelU. → Which volume? The link goes to an image gallery of the magazine covers.
  10. NeXTWORLD Expo 1992. NugUK (1992). → The title is Rumours?? And it is a personal webpage.
  11. NeXTWORLD EXPO. NeXTWORLD Extra magazine (1993). → Link to cheap airline tickets, hotel, free insurance, games, etc.??
  12. [January 1997] “Crossing the Bar”, NeXTSTEP Technical Review (HTML). → A personal website. Can't find out who (s)he is. Please find more official source.
  13. Business Week, December 20, 1993. → What is this? Which article?
  14. Apple Computer (20 December 1996). Apple Computer, Inc. Agrees to Acquire NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 25 June 2006. → Goes to a webarchive search result and it is empty. Link to the original site is broken. Please replace this source.
  15. Sample Business Contracts - Apple Computer, Inc and NeXT Software, Inc. onecle (1996). → Unauthorized website. Can't find what the website is all about, only lists of contract samples.

Overall, I oppose this article for FA for the moment. Please standardize all citations (see WP:CITET). All web article with authors should be given its author name. Make sure all information are correct: title, publisher name, url, etc. Online sources should be supplied with the last time it was accessed. — Indon (reply) — 00:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the references are cited as best I could. Most of the articles do not cite their author, and some do not even have a title -- I don't have 100% access to the articles cited. Take a look at the webpages yourself. The web archive search isn't empty if you click on the correct date. The sample business contracts show the agreement between NeXT and Apple for their buyout. As for the NeXT magazines, look at the statement. Why should one volume be referenced? The article isn't talking about one volume. The YouTube links are external, nothing to do with Wikipedia - why should a license matter? The videos are not hosted by Wikipedia. All of the references already use cite templates. None of these concerns came up in the last FAC. — Wackymacs 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the references you mentioned have been fixed by User:Tomhormby. — Wackymacs 07:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked again to the references, but going to comments your statements above one by one:

• If you don't have 100% access to the articles cited, then how would readers see the source?

I was talking about the print sources, as I don't have the newspapers/magazines myself (those were cited online at an articles website). — Wackymacs 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have taken a look at the webpages myself, thank you. That's why I listed them above. The web archive searh is empty. It lists dates. Should readers find themselves which date of the source? Please take a look again at WP:RS (and its examples). Giving an internet search result is not a convenient link.

See here (web archive, works - users can choose any date they want from the periods the article was actively online - that's how archive.org works).

• The sample bussiness contract is used as a sample for a class course. Can you guarantee that it is the legitimate contract?

Looks like the real thing to me. There are several other real contracts on that same site. — Wackymacs 16:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• A citation should link to the source of the factual data/statement. If you want to tell something about NeXT magazine in general, use wikilink. If there isn't WP article about that, then create a stub. Read again on when to cite sources in WP:CITE.
• The YouTube links. If you don't know the copyright of those videos, then don't link them. Per WP:C,

If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry).

That's my comments on your response above. I'm going to look again to the sources later. — Indon (reply) — 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I removed all of the questionable refs and replaced many of them with refs to contemporary periodicals. I don't know if that's OK, though. I still need to add the access dates, but if I understand you correctly, that's the last thing you're looking for? For the record, I believe people can read Infotrac abstracts. Tomhormby 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's have a look to the article again, as of [3]. And to Tomhormby, no, my reviews above are not the last thing I'm looking for. I haven't checked WP:MOS, the prose (perhaps somebody else will do), and other things. (Note: please do not mix your responses with my reviews below. Add your responses after my signature with proper indentation. Use item number to address my specific review below. Statements with darkred colors are taken from the article. Thanks)

1. Since NeXT website is already closed, then do not add the ext. link to that website in the infobox, although through the webarchive, because it is out-of-date.
2. I'm questioning the accuracy of these statements: Despite NeXT's lack of commercial success, it had a large impact on the computer industry. Object oriented programming and user interfaces became more common after the release of the NeXTcube and NeXTSTEP in 1988. It is unreferenced and there is no proof that OOP and UI are now used largely because of NeXT. This is a false statement, thus WP:OR.
3. WebObjects never became very popular because of its initial high price of $50,000, but it also had an impact disproportionate to its popularity. → WP:PEACOCK and unreferenced.
4. What is the relation between these staments: Jobs had been stymied by Apple's corporate structure and was determined to avoid the bureaucratic infighting that had led to his resignation. The changes ranged from a health insurance plan that offered benefits to not only married couples, but unmarried couples and same-sex couples to a completely new corporate nomenclature. with NeXT? Drop it, please. It is very unencylopaedic statements. Not for this article.
5. At Apple, secretaries were area associates, but Jobs took it a step further and abandoned conventional corporate structures,[35] instead making NeXT a community with members instead of employees. → read the bold part. It does not make sense with the rest of the statement.
6. PC Magazine, 11 September 1990, Volume 9, Number 15. → title? author? (*sigh*).
7. "Businessland Deal Seen for Next Inc.", REUTERS, March 25, 1989. → The link goes to New York Times, not Reuters. NYT used Reuters source, but you read it from NYT.
8. Re. sources with ext. links to Infotrac website. No, I can't read it. It needs a special access. Why do you use that link? Why can't you use PCWeek or InfoWorld websites directly? If there is no online version, then don't create a link to a paid 3rd party website.
9. Duplicate items in the Further Reading section with References section. Don't put sources that are already used for reference in further reading.
10. Apple Computer (20 December 1996). Apple Computer, Inc. Agrees to Acquire NeXT Software Inc.. Retrieved on 4 January 2007. → 404 Not Found to the link of the specific webarchive search result. (*sigh*)
11. Per WP:EL, minimize only to necessary ext. links. I see the external links to the questionable sample contracts website for a class course, among others.

Conclusion, I'm still opposing. — Indon (reply) — 17:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per Indon, WP:LEAD, and the article is undercited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Undercited, there's over 40 footnotes? All statements are referenced throughout the article. — Wackymacs 07:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain what is wrong with the lead. It is cited and concisely summarizes the article efficiently (it isn't too long or too short). — Wackymacs 07:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for a second look.

• All websources need last access date. For example, this one: The NeXT years: Steve Jobs before his triumphant return to Apple (HTML). Low End Mac (2006). and What System Comes NeXT? (HTML). TidBITS (1996).
• All footnotes need full biblio info - as an example, this one has an author and a full publication which aren't given: What System Comes NeXT? (HTML). TidBITS (1996), and this one also has an author and full publication date, which isn't provided: The NeXT years: Steve Jobs before his triumphant return to Apple (HTML). Low End Mac (2006).
• The above are only samples - please check them all, and use a consistent style (for example, dates are not consistently formatted).
• When citing different pages of the same book, please use the format used for Rose - for example, the repeat refs to Young should be handled the way Rose is, and all book refs should be listed as References.
• Young is listed as further reading, when it should be listed as a Reference - pls check all of them.
• Are all of these really cited to page 80? a b c d e f g h Stross, Randall (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Athenium, 80. ISBN 0-689-12135-0.
• Are all of these really cited to page 56? a b c d e f g h i j Stross, Randall (1993). Steve Jobs and the NeXT Big Thing. Athenium, 56. ISBN 0-689-12135-0.
• There are large amounts of uncited text - examples only:
  • Almost the entire section, "Impact on the computer industry"
  • On every desk, there was a prototype NeXTCube and a $450 phone that was integrated with all of the sales offices and foreign subsidiaries. Jobs even had a T1 line installed at his home so he could work from there.
  • At the insistence of existing Mac developers, Apple included an updated version of the original Macintosh toolbox that allowed existing Mac applications integrated access to the environment without the constraints of Blue Box; this was named Carbon.
• It is very frustrating to look at an article when the referencing is not in order - pls attend to this first.
• Samples of unencyclopedic prose: The first floor was decked out with hardwood flooring and huge worktables where the workstations would be assembled.
• Samples of prose problems - sentence fragment: US$75,000 for team members who had joined before 1986 and $50,000 for those who joined afterward.

You'll notice that my examples come from the bottom of the article, as I assume others look first at the top - they are examples only, please don't just fix those - the entire article needs serious attention to referencing and prose. Per WP:LEAD, you should have several paragraphs summarizing the article and giving a stand-alone overview of the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. 1a. Here are random examples that indicate fresh eyes are needed for a thorough copy-edit throughout.
  • What is "Early founding" (title)? How many times can you found? Do not use title case for headings.
  • Go through and weed out this "start", "began to" thing. "was forced to start curbing Jobs' power". I've seen this in other Mac-related articles. Who's writing this expression? There are FIVE in the paragraph I've chosen to inspect.
  • "Gassee"—Period missing.
  • "Eventually" is not an encyclopedic word. Give our readers the year.
  • "Macintoshes" three times in a sentence. Not the prettiest construction.
  • "a Nobel Laureate, who Jobs met"—Should be "whom", but just make it "a Nobel Laureate Jobs met".
  • "Unfortunately", "hugely"—lose the POV and the puffery.

Oh, it's not worth reading more. This is way below standard. Tony 00:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above; sorry, but this isn't up to standard yet. Trebor 13:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Campbell's Soup Cans

I would like to learn about the featured article procedure in an effort to become a better editor and hopefully, in the process, succeed at producing such an article. The best way to learn is under fire. TonyTheTiger 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• I cleaned up the references, but you have the Comenas website listed two different ways, so don't know what to do with it - not clear if it's a book or what. I'm not crazy about the image placement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • One Comenas link is for a quote that he credits to a NY Times article. Thus, his website is a secondary source. The others are for anecdotes he is relaying on his website as a primary source to the best of my knowledge. The NYT attribution should be treated differently, but I am not sure how. Thanks for the help. TonyTheTiger 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WRT the images. I truly wanted to have a picture gallery because the varied soup cans are only part of the story. The main story is about the original 32. Thus, I don't want to have a lot of other images at the top of the page. However, I don't want to get rid of them either because they are instructive. TonyTheTiger 05:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't like the way the images extend into section headings: because the article is about the visual arts, the placement of the images should be visually pleasing. I'll try to scare up some information about the citing problem on the Comenas link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Hi Sandy, just a quick comment, I noticed that images often depend on the computer/settings you are using. If I adjust the images on my Military brat (U.S. subculture) article at work, then they are messed up on my home computer. If I adjust them at home, then they are messed up at work. One other quick point, I haven't read the whole article yet, but the lead section should be expanded.Balloonman 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • As I understand it the lead is suppose to set up the article. Let me know if there are specific things in the article that caught you by surprise based on the lead. This will help me to expand it. TonyTheTiger 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • No, the lead is not supposed to set up the article; it's supposed to be a stand-alone summary of the article. See WP:LEAD (by the way, I haven't yet looked at the rest of your article - only fixed the refs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment find a ref for the citation needed tag. I don't like the way at the end where you have images on both sides and stuff in the middle gets squeezed. It especially throws off reading the refs.Rlevse 18:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response What screen resolution are you viewing at? Your complaint sounds like a low resolution problem encountered with double sided images. It is common on pages I create because I use 1600x1200 when formatting. It seems both yours and the above image placement problems are minor because the first art FA that I looked at Salvador Dalí seems to use double sided placement like I do. Let me know if you think this is a big issue. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm at work right now, and on my computer it looks fine... but having said that, you probably want to change it because it will not look fine on my computer at home. In order to be a true featured article, it should be configured to look nice on both monitors.Balloonman 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WRT the citation. I have been looking for it for a month. I had found it browsing a book at my local Borders that was sold out on my last visit. I will try to find it quickly. The best I have been able to do is find the similar following sentence that I added yesterday before nominating. TonyTheTiger 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object very nice start, but not there yet. The WP:LEAD is inadequate, I seriously doubt any of those Fair Use images will pass muster (check with Jkelly (talk • contribs) ), "Background" is not an encyclopedic section heading, and there are massive amounts of uncited text - here is but one sample:
  • Extended debate on the merits and ethics of focusing ones efforts on such a mundane commercial inanimate model kept Warhol's work in the art world conversations. The pundits could not believe an artist would reduce the art form to the equivalent of a trip to the local grocery store. Talk did not translate into monetary success for Warhol. Dennis Hopper was the first of only a half dozen to pay $100 for a canvas. Blum decided to try to keep the 32 canvas as an intact set and bought back the few sales. This pleased Warhol who had conceived of them as a set, and he agreed to sell the set for 10 monthly $100 installments to Blum. Warhol had passed the milestone of his first serious art show. Unfortunately, while this exhibition was on view in Los Angeles, Martha Jackson canceled another planned December 1962 New York exhibition.
• The article needs to be thoroughly cited, Fair Use images checked, and tweaked a bit more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Anything that remains uncited in the article is likely from the Watson reference that I mentioned above as unrecovered. I went to a 2nd Borders today. I will go to a third tomorrow to try to find the remaining citations. TonyTheTiger 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, I'm going to have to object too. The sheer number and overusage of fair use images makes most of them unqualified to fall under WP:FUC (plus, the images squeeze the text, causing the formatting to look odd, like Rlevse noted). There are some other problems that appear sporadically in the text (random skimming of text):
• capitalization: American Pop art, why Warhol chose Campbell's Soup Cans (here, cans just refer to cans, not the paintings), is that She asked him
• Is "every day" spelt as two words in the source?
• Then later she gave him the advice to paint something very simple as well such as Campbell's Soup Cans. convoluted sentence
• Despite the fact that at that time "Though" would do the same thing
• art worlds sensibilities - apostrophe.
• directions ;) : such as the one to the left (when the sketch is on the right), as depicted to the right (when the painting is on the left), Campbell's Tomato Juice Box (above left), (when its on the right side)
• AZ _t 03:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a.
  • " the most renowned practitioner of American Pop art."—Is that the long version of "the most renowned American pop artist"?
  • "This particular pop art theme was a bit offensive to the conservative art world and there continues to be significant speculation on his true motives for producing the series and its subsequent variations."—"A bit offensive" is colloquial and vague. Remove "significant"? (weasaly) What are "true" motives? "Producing its subsequent variations"? And we have "various" and "variations" within two sentences.
  • "The one to the left"—the image is on the right ...
  • "Although Warhol attempted silkscreens of comic strips and other pop art,"—He only attempted? He didn't produce them? And there's confusion as to whether the meaning is "silkscreens of other pop art".
  • Winding snake: "Blum happened to be visiting Warhol in May 1962 as he was working on his 16th Campbell’s Soup can at a time when Warhol was being featured in a Time Magazine 11 May 1962 article The Slice-of-Cake School along with Roy Lichtenstein, James Rosenquist, and Wayne Thiebaud."

I'm going no further. The whole article needs close copy-editing. Tony 11:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback already received. I am going to attempt to clean this up as per your suggestions ASAP. The main downtown branch Chicago Public Library has the Stewart book. I got a quick look at the reference copy on Saturday. I have put my name on the hold list to receive the circulating copy at my local branch when it becomes available. I appreciate the encouragement of doable improvements that I have received. TonyTheTiger 17:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be sure to get someone to clear the Fair Use issue on the images - I don't speak that language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Done I got some fair use feedback on the talk page. It seems the images themselves will not be a problem as long as I incorporate them into the article. TonyTheTiger 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll consider that done if you get an opinion from Jkelly or Meegs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT. Citations need to be more complete, per WP:CITE. Author and page number is not a complete citation, even if the book is listed below. Should combine them. Not enough referencing, either. Writing needs to be copyedited significantly. Prose isn't exactly brilliant, but it's better than average. Not quite enough though to pass criteria 1(a). Too many short, stubby sections. Need better organization of the article (i.e. sections). Too many opinions and claims about Warhol's work masquerading as "fact" (even with citations, statements asserting claims of "most popular", etc. are still just opinions. Citing someone's opinion doesn't make it a fact...see WP:RS). Doesn't pass the neutrality test. —ExplorerCDT 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The citation system used in this article is fine, and common. You are misreading WP:CITE if you believe it precludes the use of this style. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, it is you need to go back and re-read WP:CITE. Especially that section about "full citations". In case you can't find it: Full citations may be formatted by hand or using one of the citation templates. Full citations typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Page numbers are essential whenever possible. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional.. Reading that (which is utterly clear) and then looking at your citations in the article...simply mentioning just an authors surname and page number does not a full citation make. Go back and make them "full citations" and then apologize for having the presumption for suggesting that I don't know what I'm talking about. I just promoted my objection to STRENUOUSLY OBJECT. —ExplorerCDT 10:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The full citations are provided in the references section. Check any five featured articles and you will find one using this same system, e.g. Pericles, Alcibiades, etc. It is pretty common, in fact it is more or less identical to a very common style. Sorry if I offended you. Christopher Parham (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't know how much academic work you do, but even with a little you'd know that MLA requires you to use the full citation first in a note before you can use the Last name, page number format as an abbreviation when doing later ibidem and op.cit. entries. If these "citations" were placed within the body of the article as relevant, in the shape of Harvard Referencing (a format I hate with a passion), they'd be fine and I wouldn't object on this point. Right now, though, they are footnotes, and as footnotes, should comply with footnote guidelines. Lastly, Comparing to other FAs is a tricky prospect, as several older FAs don't meet modern standards and should be brought up for review. —ExplorerCDT 21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Re. "most popular" etc. This is quite acceptable to state underWP:V if it is found in a reliable source: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." This does conform to WP:NPOV. If there is another reliable source that states something different, then both viewpoints should be included. Tyrenius 01:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Some more thought needs to be put into the images used in the article, especially since they're used under Fair Use guidelines. I'm sorry if it seems everyone's piling on with their demands, but at least these should not take long to correct:
  • Dimensions: First, a somewhat niggling point of pedantry. You need to scale back the size of some of the images. If they were freely-licensed, there'd be no problem, but for Fair Use there's no need to upload them with dimensions larger than are used on the page itself. Image:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA.jpg is obscenely large.
  • Captions: This is the sticking point for my objection. I'm pretty sure you've tried to follow the guidelines at the bottom of WP:CAPTION, but those are more relevant to articles on individual works of art than series such as this. The caption in Opening of the Fifth Seal is great, since the article goes on to discuss the work in detail. That isn't the case here – each image gets only a single sentence in the article to describe them, if that. Move the current captions to the image description pages, that's what they're there for. Instead, explain in the caption why the reader should bother to look at the image. If you don't know why they should, then it's likely the image doesn't belong.
  • Rationales: To be honest, if your captions are good, I'll go through and redo these myself, so don't worry overly much about them. But since I've some spare time, I'll pick one set apart:

from Image:Campbell's Soup with Can Opener.jpg:

1. It is a historically significant painting. - This one's fair enough, as it aims to respond to the "nature of the copyrighted work" criterion.
2. The image is only being used for informational purposes. - Too vague. What information does this image in particular bring to the article that its fellow half-dozen already there do not?
3. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because it shows the subject of this article and how the image depicted is familiar to the general public. - This is just waffle, and essentially repeats 2.
4. The image is readily available on the internet. - Not a justification for Fair Use, else we'd be free to upload full mp3s of popular songs, and use any AP photograph that took our fancy.

Basically, my object amounts to this: Beyond a lead image to illustrate a typical example of the series, it's not clear why the others are there. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are saying 2 images would be sufficient for this article. The upper right image obviously must stay and you seem to suggest one variation. I think this is incorrect. Now, the phrase Campbell's Soup Cans means much more than the original 32. I think an article should attempt to educate the reader by example on what the name now means. Thus, I included several examples. If I could find an additional image from his 3rd phase I would add it. I will also photograph Campbell's Soup Cans II next time it is on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago. I think this is actually an example of an article where a gallery would be well placed, but I can't include one and get have a successful FA. TonyTheTiger 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Today, I just learned that not only screen resolution, but also browser choice vastly affects the layout of images on a page. In the future, after I revise this page and reapply for FAC I will request image complainants state their browser and screen resolution so I can do my best to understand their complaints. TonyTheTiger 16:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Delhi

A GA, this article probably needs fine tuning in certain aspects so that it can be brought to FA status. The article is under the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. Please review the article and help improve it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't this be in peer review then? AZ _t 17:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Good observation. It underwent peer review recently. Forgot to give the link. here it is : peer review.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose too many red links. --Foundby 19:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on this. Please check back in a few days. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Will do, if I forget leave a message on my talk page. --Foundby 19:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In any case, red links are not an obstacle for FA status. There is no criterion impeding a FA having red links.--Yannismarou 17:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Could we have a better district map? I can make one if we agree. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Deeptrivia. Please make a better district map. Please comment on other aspects you think need improvement for getting FA status. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Map is done. A comment on the culture section. There is a distinct culture within the Walled City, which according to many as the authentic Delhi culture developed in Delhi over centuries (contrasted to the culture predominantly influenced by Punjabi immigrants who came in 1947.) Some more stuff should be added on this Delhi culture. An interesting reference is City of Djinns (I don't have it currently). deeptrivia (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Quick comments Do you mean that the page is currently undergoing serious work by that project? In that case, shouldn't the nomination wait for a stable version? As far as the article is concerned, let me make a couple of superficial comments. First, please cleanup the external links per WP:EL. Also, the article ends with a bunch of large topic tables. I think most of them are unnecessary. Pascal.Tesson 22:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to quick comments Hi! The article underwent major works in May 2006. Moderate works were also done in December 2006 (especially copyediting, updating of statistical data per newly available studies, proper linking and summarizing). The article has been stable structurally for past 6 months. No editwars occur in the article. Minor additions/reversions/modifications are, of course, occuring, which is usual for such a city article. So, in gist, the article is not undergoing serious work by the project.

The comment above (on culture section) by Deeptrivia can be considered to question comprehensiveness of the article, which is fair in the FAC. An article in FAC might not seem comprehensive to a reviewer. And an actionable object or comment is welcome in this regard.

The External links seems to be ok now. Please comment. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not quite ready to support from the get go but the article is very nice. Writing is excellent (although I'm sure some of the keen-eyed copy-editors will find minor things that need fixing), organization is clean, lots of content (though I'm not competent to judge comprehensiveness). On my browser, the huge Dehli-related topics table overflows to the right for some reason. Also, the culture section is large enough that it might make sense to spin-off a separate article. I'll probably support the article in a few days. Pascal.Tesson 06:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comments: Thanks for your observations. I've tried to fix the overflowing of the "Delhi-related topics" template. Will be trying to do a daughter article (and adequate summarizing) of "Culture" section. Please check back later. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- Please read my comment regarding the sentence about monuments in the peer review. It is very awkward currently. --Blacksun 10:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Hi! The sentence has been changed accordingly. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've done a little bit of copyediting but I suspect that some more competent work in that respect would do it some good. (See the crazy hard, yet oh so valuable advice User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a) Also, the last paragraph of the education section is redundant with the count given in the first one. Also, while I was truly happy to learn about lakh, I'm not sure it makes use to use such non-standard units, especially in articles of high value which will be read extensively by non-Indians. (Of course, one might also argue that this is precisely why it should be left there...) Pascal.Tesson 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply Names of universities shifted to where count was given. Million and billion equivalents given alongside lakhs and crores. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, nice work but in general wouldn't you agree that there is just too many wiki links? Often redundant. Arjun 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For example, from the first line of the History section], does epic need to be wikilinked? As the Mahabharata is in fact an epic, this info can be learned on the Mahabharata article. I would personally suggest removal of that link. Arjun 03:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Have tried to decrease the overwikification. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you 110% better Great Job, I will take a more full look at this article later so I can correctly judge but from what I read I am leaning to Support. Arjun 15:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Support After reading the article, I find it first off very informative, I see no MOS probs, and no redundancies. Do you think that the History section should be trimmed however? Arjun 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply The history section was slightly trimmed. Please have a look. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Arjun 20:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mild oppose - Unreferenced claims - "Due to a high migration rate, Delhi registers as one of the fastest growing cities in Asia.", "The Persianized surname Dahelvi is also related to residents of Delhi", "Broadband internet penetration is increasing in the city, with MTNL and Tata being the leading service providers.". Please advise when refs are provided for these claims (or they are removed) and I will switch to support this otherwise sound article. The grammar is also shaky in parts, but I will fix that now. Proto::► 14:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now support (good work). Proto::► 09:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply:Thanks for the comments. I'd be somewhat busy tomorrow. Will either provide reference for the citation needed tags, or remove those sentences in 2 days. Please check back again. And a huge thanks for the edits you made in the article. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thre fixed, one still on there ("Traditionally, the monsoons are supposed to touch Delhi by 29 June every year.". Proto::► 19:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Ooops! Missed that. Now citation provided. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment article has made nice progress. I would still recommend invoking the magic of the league of copyeditors. It would be helpful in putting the final touches. Pascal.Tesson 03:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Have submitted it to The League. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose- Everything looks fine and pretty at a glance but I get the strong feeling that the article is not well-researched in many areas. For instance, the culture section is severely lacking despite having many paragraphs of content. The problem is that most of that content is generic and can be applied to any Indian city. I expect more about Delhi's culture - after all it is the capital of India and one of her largest + oldest cities. Cookie cutter templates and content will not work for me. For a reference, compare it with Kolkata's culture section and you can readily see the difference in quality. This article has no soul for me. *shrugs* --Blacksun 11:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a ton Blacksun for your observation. Hmm...now we need some Delhiite I guess, to provide some soul in the article. Yes I can now understand. The article has data, but is not exactly representing the city properly. Right? Ok, I'm trying. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT. Well-written, looks to be well-researched, but several sections are without referencing (Culture, Transportation etc.) and need more citations. Would like to see alleviated a few of those red links in Culture section, italicise the names of newspapers and periodicals (per WP:MOS-T). Decent lead, but still needs expansion. —ExplorerCDT 02:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. We'll try to address these concerns ASAP. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object -- Blacksun does have a point. I wish I could help, but I'm not from Delhi and don't know much about it. You might be able to solve this by using the weekend to immerse yourself in one or two well-written books on Delhi and authored by a Delhi native (I'm thinking of something along the lines of Maximum City); you might then be able to integrate the facts in the "Culture" section, relate more unique things about Delhi, and make the section flow more smoothly. Convoluted and inscrutable wording such as "[t]he India Habitat Centre provides a physical environment which would serve as a catalyst for a synergetic relationship between individuals and institutions working in diverse habitat related areas" may also be contributing to this effect. Otherwise looks promising. Thanks. Saravask 05:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• What is the scope of the article? The article does not have a clear focus and it seems to vacillate as an article written as a metropolis and union territory. The focus should be as an urban area. =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The NCT of Delhi is the scope. This happens to be the metropolis as well as the special union territory. Isn't it so? NCT is divided in 3 municipalities. The agglomeration, on the other hand, is NCR which includes 4 satellite cities. NCR is not highlighted in the article, just mentioned. Please comment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Not too badly written, but a FA on this topic would need some massaging. Here are random examples of why the whole article needs a copy-edit.
  • Prepositions need an audit, e.g., "around 2.5 times of the national average" and "a major post in the old trade routes"—"in"? No, "on".
  • Bloat: "it faces key issues like"—Try "it faces issues such as"
  • Repetition: " the seventh most populous metropolis in the world. Delhi's metropolitan area," plus a "metropolis" above. What about going plain, with "city"?
  • Redundancy: "Altogether, the NCR is the world's fifth most populous agglomeration"—The last word renders the first unnecessary.
  • "are considered to be the same entity"—Who's doing the considering? Just remove "considered to be". This occurs elsewhere, too.
  • Ungainly snake: "After the end of the Slave dynasty, a succession of Turkic and Central Asian dynasties, the Khilji dynasty, the Tughluq dynasty, the Sayyid dynasty and the Lodhi dynasty held power in the late medieval period and built a sequence of forts and townships that are part of the seven cities of Delhi." We think we're reading a list, but the lead–items boundary is unclear at first. Try ", power was held by a succession of ...". Split the sentence towards the end?
• "the mid sixteenth century"—Try "the mid-16th century". Tony 11:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply the article is being copyedited by new editors. Some specific examples cited by you have already been addressed. More works going on. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose for now

1. Lopsided ToC. What is administration doing under Geography? And why does districts have to be a single L3 heading?
2. Climate Table not needed on this page
3. Etymology needs more citations
4. Choppy sentences: Archeological relics dating back to the second millenium BCE have been found in and around Delhi so??? what does this imply?
5. The part on Delhi-New Delhi gaining capital status in 1911/1947 in the history section is convoluted and should be simplified.
6. Delhi is located at 28.38° N and 77.13° E -- use the template coor
7. Due to Delhi's proximity to the Himalayas -- promimity to the Himalayas? How close is it? Doesn't seem very close, and if my geography serves me correct cold weather in Delhi is not from the Himalayas but rather the fag end of 'western disturbances" (from the Mediterranean) which deposit snowfall over kashmir.
8. How does the Delhi HC order to remove illegal establishments in effect shape the overall history of Delhi?
9. How would you define pleasant climate?
10. per capita - do not italicise
11. Culture definately needs improvement. See other city articles
12. 'alarmingly' high?
13. sports can be merged with culture
14. Extreme temperatures have ranged from -- have ranged from or range from? Use the present tense and the records are still valid
15. lead needs to be smoothened

=Nichalp «Talk»= 16:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Nichalp's oppose:

1. Fixed. New section "Civic administration". ToC looks better now.(please see)
2. Climate table moved to daughter article.
3. etymology citations - to be done.
4. Archeological relics sentence - changed, with implication.
5. Capital status - simplified. (please see)
6. Template coordinates used.
7. Uncited sentence removed.(proximity).
8. Delhi sealing drive is insignificant - removed.
9. pleasant - removed.
10. italics - removed.
11. Culture - Huh! that's a mammoth task! Will be trying to take care shortly.
12. alarming - removed
13. Sports not merged with culture.
14. Extreme temp "range" - done.
15. Lead - to be done.(please help) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if something about the lead can be on on Sat. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment In reply to Blacksun and Saravask's suggestion that the article, especially the section "Culture" lacks soul, I must say that is probably because the city IS lacking soul (objections from Delhi-fans are welcome, those might help to infuse some soul in the article). Yes, Old Delhi, the Walled City, had some distinct cultural traits. Just a bit of those typical things have now been mentioned in the "Culture" section. Unfortunately hardly any more remarkable legacies persist. In all related articles, every writer is rueing how good was the old city, in particular, and Delhi in older days, in general, and how lustreless is the city at present. Please see the articles here. The same tune is repeating.

The problem is all those things are past. As user Deeptrivia has mentioned here, "Unless we talk about the historical Delhi culture in detail, I don't think much can be written about Delhi that is unique from other cities. The walled city used to have a culture, but the lack of soul of the present article merely reflects the lack of culture of the city itself. Present Delhi culture will revolve around keywords such as PVR, immigrants, Punjabi culture, Dilli Haat, Trade Fair, Republic Day, Politicians, etc. There isn't much unique to write about. Going into the past, we can write about people like Amir Khusro, Ghalib, poetry in general, courtesans, enunchs, the havelis, partridge fighting, the Sufi mysticism (Nizamuddin, etc), Lutyens, Anglo-Indians, etc"

However, mentioning these things in "History" is probably unnecessary, as the section is largely geopolitical history discussing the city in general. We have to remember not to make the article a huge one. At least, these things do not merit more than a sentence or two in the History section. On the other hand, in "Culture", we have covered thepresent cultural aspects of the city. Why should we be bothered much about the past? One or two sentences might do it. "Amir Khusro, Ghalib, poetry in general, courtesans, enunchs, the havelis, partridge fighting, the Sufi mysticism (Nizamuddin, etc), Lutyens, Anglo-Indians, etc..." belong to a Delhi that is bygone. IMO, we cannot describe these things at length in the article.

IMO, the things that we can add further to "Culture" are the art galleries, museums, drama school etc. And will be adding bits about Amir Khusroo, Ghalib, Urdu poetries soon. Please comment. Trying to infuse soul (which is probably really lacking!) will go on increasing the size. Still, some very well-crafted writing may help to incorporate some more bits of Old Delhi culture without adding much to the size. Any suggestion/ copyedit/ help welcome. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] American Revolution

I recently passed this article for GA, and I think it's very well-written, reasonably referenced and broad in its coverage. I think it could be FA. Druworos 11:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Mild object don't link solo years. References(footnotes) should be in their own section and between See also and Bibliography. The full dates in your webbased refs should be wikilinked. Deeper look later.Rlevse 14:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This statement really needs a citation: "Historians find little trace of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influence in America." MLilburne 14:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply I'd gander that the Rousseau statement is most likely unreferenced because it's untrue. —ExplorerCDT 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - hmmm.. the article was passed GA on 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC) by the nominator himself and within a half hour it is nominated here. Doesn't the article need improvements from GA?? The article might be GA, but not-yet FA. Here are some examples:

1. Women section needs expansion and certainly needs copyediting. This following statements has a prose and logic problem:

   The boycott of British goods would have been entirely unworkable without the willing participation of American women: women made the bulk of household purchases, and the boycotted items were largely household items such as tea and cloth.

   Just because tea and cloth are household items, can it be concluded that women who purchased the items daily then contributed to the boycott which otherwise it would be failed??

2. The Military history: expulsion of the British 1776 section is still stubby.
3. A large part of the article is still choppy and story does not flow smoothly from one section to another.

Clearly a lot amount of copyediting is still needed. Note that the above are only just examples. — Indon (reply) — 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• There's quite a to-do list on the talk page; from the above comments, it doesn't appear this article is ready for perusal - has the article had a MilHist peer review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. While this article has the potential to be a great candidate for FA, it is not near being ready. It is not comprehensive. It is missing a lot of coverage of various angles of the Revolution. e.g. Discussion of the French and Indian War (the basis for the British Government's rationale for taxing the American colonies) is not sufficiently explored. The article is missing a lot of the historical progression leading up to and throughout the revolt. No discussion of Valley Forge, the invasion of Quebec, Battles at Monmouth, Brandywine Creek, Benedict Arnold's betrayal at West Point (which solidified American resolve at the end of the war...and cause a monumental amount of colonists to join the army). Discussion of the national debt (from the war) makes no mention of Alexander Hamilton's solution to the debt crisis. It's just amazing how much is missing from the article. Also, there are a lot of spin-off articles that could be but are not even attached through {{main|article name}} templates. Needs substantial referencing, right now it's non-existant. Note: Just looking at how bad this article is, I'm seriously thinking about taking this article on as a pet project. At this time, I'd recommend the nominator withdraw it from consideration, ask people at various WikiProjects (states, military historians, etc.) to ante-up, and see how it looks a few weeks from now. Maybe then this might be a worthwhile FA candidate.—ExplorerCDT 20:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The article will be delisted from Good Articles, it is not GA quality either. —ExplorerCDT 20:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment While I agree that the article needs work---and I DEFINATELY agree that the GA process is broken---I'm not sure if your unilaterally delisting the article is appropriate. If it passed in good faith, which this one did, then it should go through the GAR process. I suggest withdrawing the nomination and putting this up for a military history peer review. I'd also suggest a GAR. Get some feed back there.Balloonman 07:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Reinstated GA If you believe the article fails to meet GA status, you need to take it through GAR. The GAC process is broken, but you don't fix the process by ignoring the one part of being a GA that works---the GAR. This is NOT a case of somebody creating a puppet or passing their own article, this article appears to have been passed by a somewhat experienced editor in good faith. As such, to delist, it needs to go through GAR.Balloonman 16:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • As there already is a American Revolutionary War article, this article also should be renamed as it is misleading and confusing. It should be renamed to something like Political and social origins of the American Revolution given the dab disclaimer at American Revolutionary War. If I may say boldly, this entire nomination and the history surrounding the article (GA-promotion, etc.) is a clusterfuck. —ExplorerCDT 20:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that illuminating terminology, Explorer - very professional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Anytime. It might not be a pretty word, but it sure is apt. —ExplorerCDT 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree that it is not yet FA ready... but it would be helpful to know why it is not worthy of GA status (the military slang is not enough). Would you enumerate what areas need improvement? (probably a post to the atricle's talk page would be better than here.) Blueboar 03:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Why is there no discussion (or even mention) of the Enlightenment in the body of this article (yet it is in the Enlightenment category)? Many historians see the American Revolution as a product of this intellectual movement. Dmoon1 05:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawn I have no qualms about withdrawing this nomination, which, may I point out, is not in any way a self-nom. I have not personaly added or removed as much as a comma to the article. It seemed, to me, a perfectly good article, maybe not quite up to FA standards yet, but one that could benefit from constructive comments (such as clusterfuck, I suppose). I very much object to arbitrarily removing the GA listing though. I passed the article in good faith, not having been involved with it in the least. It passed GA in full compliance with the process, etc etc. If you have objections about the process itself, take it up with someone, or simply hate it, I guess. So long as it exists in its present form, however, maybe it would be more constructive to try and work within it. Seek a GAR rather than arbitrarily delisting it. At any rate, I wash my hands of it, and I encourage the editors involved to seek a GAR about the article. Many thanks to the people who actually did make constructive comments. :) Druworos 09:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If an article does not meet the GA criteria, it can be delisted. this doesn't meet the GA criteria. Therefore it was delisted. Simple modus ponens. Nothing arbitrary about it (and characterizing it as "arbitrary" is rather hypocritical...because I could say that about your promotion of it...which I think was "uninformed."). —ExplorerCDT 10:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
    • It can be delisted, but it needs to go throught the GAR process... It is too easy for an article to be listed as a GA. I personally think it should take 2-3 separate reviewers to approve it as a GA (you don't need the full spectrum of FA for a GA) but as the process currently stands all it takes is one person to approve a GA. As the process currently stands, it takes MORE than one person to delist a GA. This is to prevent wheel warring or personal opinions to get involved. The article was approved as a GA in good faith and via the proscribed criteria, it should be delisted in the same vein---through a GAR.Balloonman 17:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I'll ask again, if it is not GA worthy, please post a list of what needs to be improved to the articles talk page so we can continue improve it. Simply saying it is a "clusterfuck" does not help.Blueboar 13:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Betelgeuse incident

This is an article on a little known but significant incident in Irish maritime history. It offers a full and authoritative account of the event. Bob BScar23625 19:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Multiply problems from first view. Years alone shouldn't be linked per WP:DATE. References are incorrectly formatted, please use the {{cite web}} format. A trivia section isn't expected in a featured article. There are also plenty of unreferenced numbers and facts, while I'd personally prefer at least one reference in each paragraph. The company logos don't seem to serve an important purpose and should been removed. Refer to peer review. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael. Thankyou for your comment. If you work your way through the References I think you will find that all significant facts and figures are referenced from credible sources. I guess that "Trivia" could be re-titled as "Other facts", but does that really matter?. The use of company logos has been debated (see the discussion page for the Gulf Oil logo) - and the consensus is that they provide clarity. For example, the logo provides assurance that "Gulf" refers to Gulf Oil and not Gulf Air. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 23:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article needs a lot more referencing; there are paragraphs at a time without a single cite. Those references that there are need formatting with the appropriate template from Template:Cite. The trivia section should be integrated into the rest of the article (or removed if the information remains unsourced) per WP:TRIV. I can't find a consensus the logos provide clarity, just a long dispute over whether they even qualify under fair use. Personally, I can't see what they add to the article; it says in the article that it's Gulf Oil, so why would anyone think otherwise? Needs more work, then I'd suggest a peer review. Trebor 12:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor. Thankyou for your comment. Why cannot two or three paragraphs be served by a single reference?. Also, be aware that the Betelgeuse incident was an event that took place over a 30 minute period. We are not considering a social process that took place over 50 years. Is there scope for expansive referencing in this case?. If you plough through the debate on the use of logos in the article, I think you will see that three contributors supported their use and one objected. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 14:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at the debate, and I don't see those numbers. I see 6 opposing its use [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] and 3 supporting [10] [11] and yourself. Could you explain how your got your numbers? Trebor 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor. Note my use of the word "contributors". By which I mean editors who have made some contribution to the article. Three contributors favoured use of the logos and one opposed. The one who opposed it invited a number of his pals to come to the discussion - a practice which is frowned on by the Wikipedia community and for which the individual concerned was rebuked by an Administrator. regards. Bob BScar23625 15:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But if you are assuming good faith with them, their views are still valid (and I agree with them). Even if the copyright issue wasn't there, I don't see how logos of the companies add anything to the page. Trebor 16:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor. As regards the use of the logos, all I can say is that the people who created the article feel that the logos do add something. The practice of inviting sympathisers to join a discussion is frowned on by the Wikipedia community - it has been a blockable offence. There was nothing to stop me inviting 10 of my pals to join in the discussion on my side. This sort of behaviour is disruptive and its prohibition is entirely right. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You're still making ad hominen arguments, based on these users' motives. From a brief scan, they all appear to be valued contributors to Wikipedia, with some knowledge in the area of fair use. They weren't asked to support or oppose, they were just asked for their opinions. So I can't see why you're immediately dismissing them. And at any rate, the opinion of Michaelas10 and me (who weren't canvassed) brings the debate to 3-3 (if we want to count votes). How about arguing why they should be included? I don't see how anyone could confuse Gulf Air and Gulf Oil, because it's said four times in the article that it is Gulf Oil. And that doesn't explain why the Total logo should be used either. Trebor 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor. Individuals who come to a discussion through being selectively invited can offer a view. But such views are devalued or tainted. The terms on which the individuals were invited to the discussion in this case were little short of an invitation to object. If you feel strongly about the matter then you are welcome to go the the Gulf logo discussion page and re-open the debate. But be prepared to invoke an arbitration on it. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't near an invitation to object; essentially it said "here is the issue, this is my opinion, could you share yours". Also, arbitration should be a final resort after all other attempts to reach consensus have been exhausted (and anyway, they don't deal with content disputes ). I think this is unnecessary inclusion of fair use images, that don't improve the article, and will continue to oppose this FAC for this and the other reasons I mentioned. Trebor 17:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebor. The problem here arose because (1) the group invited to join the discussion were not chosen at random, they all appeared to be individuals who (I pick my words with care) had a track record in objecting to Fair Use images, and (2) the invitation stated the inviter's views - it wasn't just a plain invitation to join a discussion. Thankyou for an interesting exchange. Bob BScar23625 17:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Sunderland

This article is on a city in Northeast England. It has been written finely with little vandalism, it has a lot of detailed descriptions, and images. A number of experienced users contribute to it weekly and the article does not require any kind of cleanup. I think this would make a perfect featured article. Rasillon 22:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose The article is woefully short on citations and currently has at least one "citation needed" tag. There are glaring typos even in the section headings: for example, "Parlimentry divisions" and "Facilities and Amemites in Sunderland." The writing in the latter section is also particularly poor. MLilburne 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object, after a quick scan of the article. Entire sections go without a single reference. The triva section at the end should be converted to (brilliant) prose. "Non-commercial use only" images should go. Please check WP:WIAFA. --Plek 22:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question: why are you submitting the article for peer review and as FAC simultaneously (see: Wikipedia:Peer review/Sunderland)? --Plek 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Support It seems okay, but what is going on here? Wiki wa wa 22:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that Wiki wa wa has been confirmed a sockpuppet of Rasillon, who was a sockpuppet of Molag Bal. This vote is being stricken from the record. Nishkid64 20:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Critical comment I have contributed to this article myself and would be delighted to support it. But ... . Take the first sentence of the main text - The city of Sunderland is a highly large and evalated city, most of its suburbs are situated towards the west end up on the hillside well above the sea level. It is split directly through the river wear. Surely this could withstand a little tidying up?. best wishes and good luck. Bob BScar23625 23:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Reference, remove "other facts" per WP:TRIV, reduce the number of lists, copyedit (and spellcheck)...then try a peer review. Trebor 13:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Needs inline citations, and a couple of sections are lists. Isn't always stable, either, either in terms of vandalism or image copyvios. The JPS^{talk to me} 17:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Narcolepsy

Just a great article. It is referenced and written clearly. Seems to follow all Wikipedia policies & guidelines. I'm not an editor of this article, but just stumbled across it today. Being someone who has never studied narcolepsy and after reading the article I feel informed and feel its facts are reliable. Chupper 17:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Far from being ready. Not well written, poor source citing. Should be removed from FAC rapidly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Per Dwaipayan. Please refer to WP:PR first. — Indon (reply) — 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. I have made a number of contributions to the article. While it is a good article, it is not worthy to be featured. Axl 18:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Needs a substantial expansion of the lead per WP:LEAD. 1(a) considerations: too many one-sentence paragraphs. Bullet points are just that, bullet points. Need refining. Prose in general is not brilliant/compelling. Popular culture references is too listy, to trivia-esque. 1(c) considerations. This article is sorely unreferenced. This should be a candidate for speedy FAC closing. —ExplorerCDT 18:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please read WP:WIAFA. Aside from everything mentioned above, I'd like to slightly build upon one of Explorer's comments: Just get rid of the pop culture section. It's unnecessary. -- Kicking222 19:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wouldn't get rid of the popular culture references section, I would keep it and develop it for one reason. Narcolepsy is very misunderstood and as such is often incorrectly depicted in artistic works or in characterisations. That should be a point on which this article can make the popular culture references section a viable, compelling, relevant section. —ExplorerCDT 21:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand your point regarding how narcolepsy is portrayed in popular culture, and I certainly wouldn't object to a section dealing with this; as you state, there are certainly many misconceptions out there. However, a section simply saying "in Film X, Character Y is a narcoleptic," which is the current state of the pop culture section, will not do. -- Kicking222 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed. The pop culture section as is needs to go. Might as well start with a clean slate. —ExplorerCDT 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Guidelines at WP:MEDMOS may be helpful, with respect to cultural section and the rest as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: It should also be emphasized that the article needs many many more inline citations. I only saw two, and vast swaths of text that were completely unreferenced. That alone disqualifies it for FA. Jeffpw 21:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Object Please add way more citations, what this article has now is unacceptable for a Featured Article. Arjun 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Article lacks citations, and the pop culture section needs a rewrite. --SunStar Net^talk 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Captain Falcon

Moving from review to nomination. Nominating due to no response in the CVG & regular Peer Review after reaching GA status. FMF|contact 21:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Not even sure this is a GA, to be frank. Major sourcing issues, hardly anything from third party magazines (which there are plenty) and some entirely unsourced paragraphs. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - Needs a thorough copyediting. Here are a few weird sentences (or non-sentences) to get you started:

• "An eight-paged comic included in the manual of the 1990 SNES F-Zero game."
• "Based on the video game F-Zero GP Legend, the series presented Captain Falcon's persona basically the sameway done in the video games."
• "The main reason Port Town High Jump was built was due to the feeling and the casualties."
• "Very little information known about his personal background."

Kaldari 03:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Compare to Link (The Legend of Zelda) and you will see why. Jay32183 06:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT Totally not FA-material. Physical characteristics section reads like the back of a "boullabaseball card" from the promotions connected to the show ALF. Too many stubby sections. Not nearly enough referencing per WP:CITE. Just because there was no response at peer review, doesn't mean it "passed". Not much is going on around there. And Good Articles (I would have never passed this), is only as good as the least demanding judge. This is more a candidate for Good Article review (and removal) than for FA. —ExplorerCDT 09:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • P.S. I delisted this article from Good Articles. —ExplorerCDT 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Pet Shop Boys

The Pet Shop boys are not so prominent anymore, but their greatest achievement- a cover version of Go West by the Village People- became the official song of football. For those sharp-eyed enough, 'Go West' was sung live at the World Cup Final 2006 by the Pet Shop Boys. Over the years, the duo scored 4 worldwide Number Ones, and in the mid 80s, were immensely popular in the US. 'West End Girls' inspired many songs and artists alike in 1985, after its second release. Most important of all, their melodies and lyrics alike have secured them a place in music forever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWerewolf (talk • contribs).

• Oppose Haven't done an in-depth reading yet, but this is clearly lacking references -- there are no citations at all beyond the first two subsections. That leaves half the text of the article uncited. Also, there are two sections empty but for a "see also" template; these should contain a brief summary of the sub-articles. Shimeru 10:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. Not sufficiently referenced per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V. Especially with sensitive (libel risk) discussions like "Sexuality" where they are needed. Two dead headers with main article templates (biography and discography) where a summary of those articles should be. Fails 1(a) miserably. Bad writing...reads like a Robin Leach exposé, or an E! Hollywood Stories narration...examples:
  • This band dynamic has played a role in their public image as well.
  • The duo have always been very interested in the artwork, design and photography for their releases.
  • And this sentence takes the paradoxical cake: Traditionally, Pet Shop Boys have always favoured avant-garde tailored fashions. (emphasis mine)
• Also, I am concerned (and thus very extremely hesitant to support) because of the copyright status of the images. There have to be fair use images available. —ExplorerCDT 10:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This needs thorough referencing and then try a peer review. In relation to your nomination and comment here [12], becoming an featured article isn't related to a personal like or dislike for the subject; it has to meet the criteria in WP:WIAFA. Trebor 23:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose without even bothering to read the article because of the nominating statement, which doesn't even pay lip service to suggesting that we feature an article because of the quality of the article itself, not the subject's alleged place in musical history ("Go West"? And here I was thinking their greatest achievement was "Being Boring"). Daniel Case 05:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

This article should be a featured article because it was a major part of gaming history. The Hot Coffee mod especially, this was a turning point in game ratings and gaming itself.

--Toni.Cipriani 05:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object The article is not very thoroughly referenced aside from the "Reception" section. Many references are not properly formatted. Quite a few embedded lists toward the bottom; these should be converted into prose if possible. Several sections contain only a sentence or two and should be expanded. There are nine screenshots, which may be stretching "fair use" a bit -- some are necessary, sure, but I question whether all of them are. (This is pretty minor, admittedly. Erring on the side of caution, here.) The prose needs a copyedit. Shimeru 00:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT for the same exact reasons as Shimeru. —ExplorerCDT 09:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object I would love to see this become a Featured Article- I'd love it so much that I've put a bounty on the article- but it's not even close yet. I'd elaborate, but Shimeru pretty much said everything I'd want to say. -- Kicking222 14:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per above. I recommend withdrawing and spending a couple more weeks on it, and then resubmit. — Deckiller 18:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Agree I think that even the article may be lacking in some areas, I think it is a very important part in gaming history. --Teddy.Turner 19:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC) This was user's first edit. Trebor 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree with what - the Objects ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. With relation to the nom: being a featured article is dependent on the quality of the article, not the subject. Trebor 23:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Well, I understand. I shall be working on this article to make it feature article worthy, and nominate it again soon. Thanks for your feedback, and I will make sure the article is better.

--Toni.Cipriani 00:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The references should read like # 1, 2 and 3 with a publisher date retrieved, title as some are just URLs. 'Myths and easter eggs' could probably be removed and put under the 'see also' section, it's stubby and the image crosses into 'Bonus material', which could also be removed and mentioned under the soundtrack section or the article it links to, as it's only two sentences. These sections are also unreferenced. New features is prose then turns listy at the bottom. Some more references throughout the article would be nice, esp the hot coffee mod which only has two. M3tal H3ad 10:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator was blocked for being the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. i think that means this can be pulled now. The Placebo Effect 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Special effect

I nominated this article because of the fact that I was able to use this information in a research paper. The information was exceptionally accurate, I found no flaws in its description of the developmental history. Also, the links to special effect artists were extremely helpful; some of them I would not have heard of otherwise.

--I Mac- U Mac? 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose no footnotes, long lists. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Simple grammatical errors. Lack of inline citations (footnotes aren't necessary though...and it looks like there is one Harvard inline ref). Long lists (the special effects artists section duplicates Category:Special effects people). Refer to peer review. Gzkn 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. No need to repeat CanadianCaesar and Gzkn. —ExplorerCDT 05:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Please read WP:WIAFA. -- Kicking222 13:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. The article is not nearly comprehensive enough. Special effects are the mythmakers of our time, and the article contains only a rather brief history and some information on animation; nothing about the perception by the general public and their effect on (pop) culture. The list of landmark movies gives the impression that special effects weren't actually relevant until the 60s and that no proper development was made until sometime in the early 90s. Classics like A Trip to the Moon (mentioned briefly in prose, but not named or linked), Metropolis and Jason and the Argonauts are left out and major special effects pioneers like Ray Harryhausen and Stan Winston aren't even mentioned. That the third remake of King Kong is listed rather than the original pretty much sums up the bias towards recent films (as in the last two decades) . / Peter ^Isotalo 16:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object I don't see one footnote anywhere in the article. —ShadowHalo 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. If converted into prose the "Visual special effects techniques in rough order of invention" list would be a welcome addition to the article. Or possibly if merged into "developmental history". There seems a great potential for duplication in those two sections. I have to agree with Peter - although picking who to mention is subjective, but some important contributors to the field are missing. Mark83 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Windows Vista

With Windows Vista soon to be released on January 30th, it should be featured. The article is well-documented and frequently updated with new material, keeping it up-to-date and current. It is also filled with excellent descriptive pictures. I beleive that it should be made a Featured article of Wikipedia. Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 11:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Dec 2006 FAC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. It's a decent article, but the frequent updating is something that runs against it being a FA, instead of being an asset. See WP:WIAFA, section 1e. Also, the prospect of World+Dog adding their personal experiences to the article from January 30 on (or whenever the thing will be released), doesn't bode too well. --Plek 11:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object It hasn't been released to the public? That's the reason it failed FAC last time and will do so again, wait a long time no re-nominate it, as it will fail the featured article criteria 1.e. Aside from that some references are not consistent with the others and are just URls, where it should provide details like publisher, date retrieved, title etc. This Categories: Articles with unsourced statements, an unsourced statement in there somewhere. The images under 'Visual styles' make the whole article have a horizontal scroll, please make them smaller. Article is too listy throughout. I suggest another Peer review. M3tal H3ad 11:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thats why it would be ideal as a FA on its release date, January 30th 2006. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be great to have it of a very high quality, but surely you must agree that it won't be stable at that point - the release itself will need to be covered, plus any new information it brings to light. And if it's not stable, it won't pass 1e of WP:WIAFA. Trebor 21:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the use of lists. Windows 2000 is a FA and it has a lot of lists. Do lists break up the flow of an article and are they less than ideal? Of course. However with a subject as technical as an operating system, they do help explain things more clearly than we could with prose. Having said that, I still wouldn't vote for FA status. Not only will the release provoke content disputes, the article is also likely to suffer vandalism unfortunately. Mark83 17:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes it does break up the flow, editors prefer prose rather then lists. I took a look and Windows 2000 was selected as an FA roughly 19 moths ago, the criteria has changed since then. In response to Extranet, when its released you will need to add sales, profit, response, reviews, viruses, Microsoft's response to releasing patches and a lot more info and it wont be stable. M3tal H3ad 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I do understand that it will be a point of vandalism for some vandals, but I would suggest an Administrator Semi-Protect the article before it is released. If it is not accepted for FA, someone could probably re-nominate it later on in the year once all the new information is posted on the article. --Extranet ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's not so much a reflection on the article, although the comments above are good suggestions, but an article on something that will soon undergo a high-profile release will not be stable for a long while. It means we should strive to make it the best and most accurate article possible, but that making it featured wouldn't be right. Even if it was judged to be featured quality at the moment, keeping it at featured quality would be almost impossible. Trebor 13:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object, as it fails WP:WIAFA §1.e, like the last time. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object again I don't quite see the point of renominating the article for FA. Last time around it was argued, correctly so in my mind, that there was little point in promoting the article to FA status while it's clear that the article will have to incorporate a lot of new content after Windows Vista's release later this month. The article cannot be expected to remain stable in the short term. Pascal.Tesson 16:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object; I wrote the majority of the prose in this article... much as I'd like to see it be a Featured Article, it's just not stable enough. Maybe in another five months or so once things have settled down a bit. -/- Warren 17:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support; It details a lot about the OS. - Patricknoddy 5:37pm, January 14, 2007
• Object because it deals with a current event (not suitable for any FA at all). Try again later this year. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 10:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose the article details a current event, not suitable for a FA. ← ANAS ^Talk? 15:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT for all the reasons above, incluidng...if we make this a featured article (before the product comes out)...wouldn't this violate Wikipedia's policies on advertising and promotion...and why aren't we getting a cut if it isn't? —ExplorerCDT 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose because the article details a current events that might change which is not suitable for a FA. --Emx 11:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Grand Theft Auto (series)

I believe that this is a major part in gaming history and should be featured article one day. Many people may need to know about this if they are doing research on controversial games. Please consider it. Toni.Cipriani 19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - This article has several cleanup tags, and only 4 references. There's a lot of work to be done yet, before it is ready to be featured. Jeffpw 10:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - It's much like the GA:SA article you nominated, while it is one of the most popular game series it has to meet the featured article criteria which this does not. It's way too listy, unreferenced only 4, no fair use rationales for the images, has two cleanup tags which are for Trivia and popular culture. They're basically the same thing and very encyclopedic as it's just lists. The games have sparked a lot of controversy and should have a separate section for it. I suggest you get a peer review M3tal H3ad 10:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Featured article is based on quality, not subject. Trebor 13:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Two whole sections needs either removing or moving into another section.82.6.164.68 13:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree. This article does seem too listy, and it seriously looks like it needs some clean-up. Sorry, but a featured article is a featured article because of its quality, not its subject. Cat's Tuxedo 15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT. all the reasons above. —ExplorerCDT 20:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator was blocked for being the sockpuppet of an indef blocked user. i think that means this can be pulled now. The Placebo Effect 01:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Badminton

This article is well-written, accurate with the all appropriate information including. It is meet the requirement of FA status. --Aleenf1 03:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Lead is too short, refs go immediately after punctuation--not in the middle of a sentence, ref format inconsistent, huge areas unreferenced and devoid of wikilinks.Rlevse 04:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Footnotes are placed after the statement that they are intended to reference or comment. There are no restrictions about putting them in the middle of a sentence if this is appropriate. For example, a certain word or term might need commentary that won't fit in prose. The post-punctuation rule is only relevant if they actually are at the end of a sentence. / Peter ^Isotalo 11:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Nope, see WP:FN#Where_to_place_ref_tags "The ref tag should be placed directly after most punctuation marks". And when editors ignore this, 99.99% of the time there is no reason to do so.Rlevse 11:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • As far as I can tell, those guidelines seem to have been written to instruct editors about the placement of footnotes in relation to punctuation, not as a proscription against footnotes in any other position. Your assumptions about its incorrectness does not accurately reflect my experience either from Wikipedia or actual academic texts. Besides, the standards for footnote layout and weren't invented by Wikipedia, but based on real world usage. / Peter ^Isotalo 13:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • No, your assumptions are the incorrect ones. Rlevse 14:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There's been a misread of WP:FN on several FACs and FARs; there are times when a footnote has to reference a word or phrase mid-sentence. WP:FN points out that when they come at the end of the sentence, they follow the punctuation with no space - it doesn't say a fn can't occur mid-sentence. At times, the footnote must occur mid-sentence to reference one fact or portion within the sentence. Which specific footnote is being discussed here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if it refers to a phrase within the sentence, it's not hard to figure out and the fn in the middle disrupts the reading flow.Rlevse 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example where I needed to use a cite mid-sentence to indicate which source applied to each specific piece of data: Contemporary prevalence estimates range from 1 to 3 per 1,000^[1] to 10 per 1,000;^[2] the latter yields an estimate of 530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the United States, based on 2000 US census data.^[3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You can put them both after the semicolon and when people read the refs (they'd want to read both anyway in such a case) they'll see which goes with which.Rlevse 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sandy's example appears to me to be much clearer in informing readers as to what a certain footnote is supposed to comment or reference. Rlvese's suggestion is to make people guess for the sake of layout standardization. It's difficult to see exactly what the upside of this would be other than to force a quite subjective ideal on other editors. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone still unsure about this, the guideline document says: "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." (My bolding.) The "after punctuation marks" guideline only applies if there actually is a punctuation mark at the end of the term or phrase. Mike Hopley 21:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment this article is in great shape but needs some general tidying up to reach FA status. Keep leaving ideas on how it can be improved and we will get to it. Cheers Lethaniol 12:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object In addition to the above:
  • The number of subheadings is excessive, and there are lots of single sentence paragraphs which should be merged.
  • The Strokes section should be written as continuous prose rather than as a laundry list.
  • Several sections are unwikified and unreferenced.
  • The article does not give much indication of the popularity (or otherwise) of the sport. In which countries is the sport most popular? How many people play it worldwide (professionally and amateur)? Oldelpaso 12:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Are you kidding? Write about the popularity of badminton? That is no way for editor to write abou it because that is no sources as evidence to prove how much the popularity of the badmintonm also badminton can play in professional and amateur. So kick out this, the other points should be OK. --Aleenf1 16:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
      • No, I'm not kidding. Existing sport and games FAs Chess and Football (soccer) both include this sort of information. For example, a few moments of Googling tells me that 151 countries have national associations affiliated to the International Badminton Federation [13], someone familiar with the subject should be able to find plenty more information on the matter. Oldelpaso 21:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that is football (soccer), however i found out few but short and limited to just few nations, so have anything that can expand? --Aleenf1 04:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, as of [14] (the article during this review):

1. Short lead. Per WP:LS, it does not summarize the whole article.
2. A prose problem. A lot of orphaned paragraphs. Here below are just samples:
   • A rally begins with the service, in which the serving player must strike the shuttlecock so that, if left, it would land in the diagonally opposite service court. → ouch, poor prose, bad grammar.
     • What is wrong with the prose? There is certainly no grammatical mistake. I agree that some paragraphs are too short and would be better combined. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   um.. the portion ...so that, if left,..., what is the subject that left? is the "left" means the past tense of "to leave" or a position as the opposite of the right one? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   • ...the order of doubles service is determined by the Laws;... → In the following text, there are also many "the Laws" terms. Why is "the Laws"?
     • Are you referring to the capitalisation of "Laws"? Perhaps this is better uncapitalised; the capitalisation merely serves as shorthand for "the laws of badminton", as opposed to any other laws. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   It's okay with capital letter, but reading the first paragraph (General Description) and find the term "the Law" without prior explanation before is not a good article. If you have define what "the Law" is then you can write the term. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   • Games with a shuttlecock are widely believed to have originated in... → spot a weasel word.
     • Agreed. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
   • Lets may occur due to some unexpected disturbance such as a shuttle landing on court (having being hit there by players on an adjacent court). → unexpected disturbance being hit by players on an adjacent court, are you kidding? would be earthquake also? or shuttlecock is stolen? Anyway, the whole Let section does not give description to readers what Let is.
     • Well, I could make a huge list of possible disruptions, but that would hardly interest readers. For example, a let shall be called if the shuttlecock disintegrates so that the feathers separate completely from the base. The let section does describe what a let is, in the first sentence: "If a let is called, the rally is stopped and replayed with no change to the score." That defines a let. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   Your example of hitting player in an adjacent court is somewhat funny (sorry). Why don't you just write one reasonable example which happens often. And no, it is not the definition of let. It is when let is called. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

   • Statistics such as the 206 mph smash speed, below, prompt badminton enthusiasts to make other comparisons that are more contentious. → poor prose and what is below? looks opinion, rather than a encyclopaedic fact.
     • Again, please explain what is wrong with the prose. I agree that what follows is mainly opinion, but it is balanced. I do not believe scientific studies are available for such comparisons.Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   What does it "below" means? below 206 mph? below statistics? and where is the statistics? 206 mph is not statistics, but only a single metrics. And contentious? what issue? — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Lack of inline citations. Some statements unsourced statements (also random samples):
   • In England since medieval times a children's game called Battledore and Shuttlecock was popular.
   • Badminton shoes are lightweight with soles of rubber or similar high-grip, non-marking materials. (I don't recall there is any specific type of shoes for this sport)
     • There most certainly are. For example, Yonex makes a range of badminton-specific shoes. You can use squash shoes and badminton shoes pretty much interchangeably, but using tennis or running shoes is a bad idea. Do you really think this kind of statement needs to be sourced? With what, a link to a website selling badminton shoes? That would be more product placement than evidence. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

   Yes, please give your WP:reliable sources for the specific type of badminton shoes. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Some sections are "listy", per WP:MOS#Bulleted_lists.
5. Needs structuring of sections. Some are stubby that can be merged, for instance, Governing bodies, Records, etc.
6. Problems with sources: 1 forum, no printed sources and incomplete references section.

Major concern is the prose. The article is still a way far from FA-level. Some of the above reviews have been mentioned in the article's peer review and hasn't been addressed by the editors. — Indon (reply) — 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Once again, I don't understand your vague objection to "the prose". If you could explain what aspects of the prose you dislike, it would be more helpful. Mike Hopley 18:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please browse through other FA sport articles and you know why. — Indon (reply) — 19:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object waaaay too long, too many bulleted lists, orphaned paragraphs here and there, the two sections on strokes need to be entirely reorganized as they have no flow whatsoever. I think the article needs considerable work. Pascal.Tesson 00:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This objection is fair and constructive, but I'd like point out that the size of the article is not something that is normally deemed as particularly problematic for an FA on a notable topic. There are plenty of FAs in the Sport and Games-category that are close to or beyond the 50 k range. / Peter ^Isotalo 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Odject: Too many section, lead too short little to no references and as a minor note the shuttlecock link should be moved to the top of the shuttlecock section. My shocked this is even a GA.Buc 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Bruce Springsteen

Springsteen is one of the best known and most popular musicians in the world. I think that his page should honored as a FA for his tremendous ability to compose music and for his humanitarian services to the entire world. This particular article is well written and has received several awards which can be viewed on the discussion page. Jeick 02:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object - not ready, 1c. Undercited, mixed reference styles, refs not correctly formatted; suggest a peer review to better prepare for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per 1(c). There are large sections that need citations, and there are external links that need to be converted to inline citations. I'm also not seeing any "awards", only that it has good article status. —ShadowHalo 05:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per all the above. Rlevse 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for the underciting. And once again, I'll add that becoming a featured article is not a reflection on the quality/fame/importance/significance of the subject, it is simply and purely a reflection on the quality of the article. Trebor 17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per Sandy.--Yannismarou 18:08, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object - the article is POV (look at the lead) and has a lot of 'citation needed' tags - it's mostly unreferenced. I support referring this to peer review. CloudNine 11:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 19:42, 20 January 2007.

[edit] Zagreb

I nominated this article as a featured article candidate because in my opinion it meets featured article criteria. It has recently passed the good article nomination and even so, if you ask me, it is underrated. The article has lovely pictures which describe the well written text. There are many references in the text as well. If anyone has any complaints or suggestions in order to improve the article feel free to write it down. Thank you! Jajaniseva 20:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Pictures! Pictures, left, right and centre. Literally. If there is such a thing as overkill, this might be it. The sheer number of pictures wrecks havoc with the layout of the page, and completely overwhelms the article, in my opinion. Yes, they look great, but the illustrations should augment the prose, not dominate it. My suggestion would be to remove about half of them, and only keep those that really add something of value to the article. I'd be interested to hear what other editors think of this. --Plek 23:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your comment but I'm affraid I would have to disagree with you. In my opinion, these beautiful pictures make the article a little bit different and better than other articles in category Geography. Good night! Jajaniseva 01:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object, more like a tourist brochure than an encyclopedic entry. Undercited, dominated by images, the prose is very choppy, with numerous one-sentence paragraphs, and the gynormous infobox should be reduced. I recommend peer review to prepare for FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object Too many images to the point that they distract from the article while contributing little information. Large sections that have no citations, including many uncited statistics. Several brief paragraphs of only a sentence or two. —ShadowHalo 05:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I'm glad you're interested in improving this article and thank you for your critics. Could you, please, specify the sections without citations as well as uncited statistics. Thank you! Jajaniseva 09:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• History section contains 12 paragraphs, yet has only four references.

• Population could use a few more refs to support the figures asserted.

• Modern Zagreb has a paragraph of only one short sentence. You should merge that, or delete/expand the info. In fact, many sections have paragraphs of one or two sentences. This makes the prose very choppy.

• Economy section has five paragraphs, yet only two refs. The general rule is at least one ref per paragraph, and more for assertions one could reasonably expect to be challenged.

• High-rise buildings section has multiple red links. Create an article about them or delete the info. And why is there a "See also" section in the middle of the article? If it is about the buildings, it would be better to write a prose paragraph about the many skyscrapers of Zagreb.

• Administrative section has only one ref.

• City govt section: one ref.

• Transport section: one ref.

• Road section: only one ref, and section should be entitled "Roads", unless Zagreb has only one road.

• Public Transport is unreferenced has one ref, but pic covers it on my monitor. I usually don't have layout issues with my pc, but this page doesn't display properly on my screen.

• Air traffic: 2 red links, 2 one sentence paragraphs. Please expand and lose the red links.

• Other cultural sites: completely unreferenced. Ditto Surroundings and Tourism. It's as if you gave up on adding refs towards the end of the article. Jeffpw 09:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Jeffpw seems to have done a thorough job of going through unreferenced sections. The statistics I mentioned are in the "Other cultural sites and events" section. ShadowHalo 05:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object - Mostly unreferenced. Also suffers from image overload, and I'm not sure about some of the pictures, with regards to their sources. The article should use the Infobox City template - see New York City. CloudNine 20:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Why is there a logo where the name should be in the infobox? All the musical artist articles are already trying to outdo each other with logos, but cities don't even have the excuse of having proprietary logos in the first place. And if you created it yourself, isn't it a bit misleading to have it be the very first thing people see as representing the city? (And is this a widespread practice? If so, can I be referred to the people who came to this consensus?) –Unint 05:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't find the correct figures for demographics on the link provided. I'm sure they're there, I just can't find them. Can you link to the actual document that provides the figures, not just to the whole site (if you find them, in firefox you can rightclick for frame info. the url of the frame will be there. I'm sure most browers have something similar). Martijn Hoekstra 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

fixedMartijn Hoekstra 15:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

[edit] Massachusetts Institute of Technology

This article has undergone substantial changes which have remained stable since the last FAC attempt a year ago. Issues in previous FAC review have been addressed: NPOV & boosterism issues are in line with those present in other university FAs, images all have appropriate tags, and there are extensive citations. Article has already been subject to a RFF and peer review. I believe this is an exemplary article and I look forward to your feedback.Madcoverboy 06:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have been unable to add this FAC to the FAC project page because it claims that it is a blacklisted site "turkish weekly." I have left a message on both the FAC talk and would appreciate any help in resolving the matter.Madcoverboy 07:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Done Resolved! Gzkn 11:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to FA status. I'm an MIT alumnus, Class of '71, but as a WP editor I have to point out that this article is far from a NPOV. It is full of boosterism, and exposes little of the legitimate criticism of MIT and it's many problems. It is also clearly written by recent alumni, who have not read the published off-web secondary souces, that is, it has significant errors in fact about MIT. Lentower 16:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Response Are there specific examples of NPOV/boosterism issues rather than issuing blanket "NPOV" statements? Moreover, consider NPOV/boosterism issues in light of the condition of other university FAs (University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Cornell University, Duke University). A featured article is not a perfect article. If these other university articles meet the standard for FA, then the same standard should be applied to MIT's article. These articles contain as much, if not more, of the same type of boosterism present in MIT's article, hence my opening statement that it is "in line with those present in other university FAs" not that boosterism is altogether absent in MIT's article.
• What other "legitimate" criticisms of MIT exist and how are the current ones described in the article (minority/women representation, military research, freedom of speech, research misconduct, suicide) either insufficient or illegitimate?
• What specific "significant errors" exist in the article? Moreover, how does mine of any other editors' status as student, alumnus, or independent collaborator bear on the assessment of the merits of the article (WP:CIV)?Madcoverboy 01:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to FA status, for the same reasons as Lentower: There are too many places where the beaver is slapping its cardinal-and-grey tail in the reader's face. Details in bullet list: Dpbsmith (talk), MIT '66, 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Research accomplishments is a good case in point, failing to distinguished between genuine MIT institutional strengths and individual celebrities. The section is plastered with enough weasel-words ("thus-and-such were developed in part at MIT") to avoid outright untruth. I took some nibbles at fixing this; at one time it made the astonishing claim that "In electronics, transistors, [long additional list] were invented or substantially developed by MIT researchers," apparently based on the syllogism that 1) Shockley received an MIT doctorate in 1936 2) Brattain (Whitman College, University of Oregon, University of Minnesota alumnus) Bardeen (University of Wisconsin alumnus) and Shockley developed the transistor at Bell Labs in 1946; ergo, transistors were "invented by an MIT researcher." After digging into it some more, I threw up my hands; there's no way to fix this section but blow it away and start over.
• The Noted alumni section is bloated. I'm inclined to think college articles shouldn't have noted alumni sections in them, cordoning off that listcruft into a separate article, because no article has ever managed to construct a stable list of the truly household-word names. These sections attract drive-by additions of people's personal faves, and there is never any way to establish an eminence threshold that well-enough defined for different editors to agree on whether or not it has been achieved.
  • Comment This section is no longer than Duke's alumni section, Michigan State's people section, or Cornell's Alumni section.Madcoverboy 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good reason why those articles should not get FA status either. Lentower 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• The billboard of corporate advertising is embarrassing The fact that some of the most prominent companies are deceased suggests resting on past laurels. Tyco, engulfed in scandal, hardly seems like an ornament to MIT. And what is Hewlett-Packard, the iconic West Coast garage startup, founded by Stanford guys, doing there? Carly Fiorina didn't found it.
  • Comment NPOV should preclude one from selectively choosing among the companies. Hewlett received his MS from MIT.Madcoverboy 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Associating Hewlett-Packard with MIT is a reach. It ain't exactly a Route 128 company. You might as well put an Eddie Murphy Dr. Dolittle movie poster in; the connection with MIT is at least as close. I think anyone who put a Microsoft logo into the Harvard article would get laughed at. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• The rankings section is far too long. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment MIT's is no longer than Cornell University's 5 paragraphs or Duke University's two large paragraphs.Madcoverboy 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Good reason why those articles should not get FA status ither. Lentower 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• To end on a positive note, the images of the MIT campus are absolutely gorgeous. Dpbsmith (talk), MIT '66, 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object not comprehensive, POV issues. The article was almost certainly written by a current undergrad or recent alum, and reflects that perspective; historical and wider-society controversies are skimmed over or missing in favor of unnecessarily specific details on undergraduate life. "Controversies" section in particular has a very weird selection from among the many possibilities. Some of the student-life stuff is also just rather awkwardly covered; MIT hacks are much better-known and more interesting among the general population that the fact that chemistry is course 5. "Notable alumni" section badly needs a trim, like all such sections - points about inappropriate company mentions above are also worth noting (seriously, HP?). The "research accomplishments" section reads like a previously bulleted list that was "prosified" by removing the bullets. (I don't think the rankings section is as bad as suggested above.) On the upside, the pictures are excellent and the referencing is solid. Opabinia regalis 02:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - overall, this is a good article. Comprehensive, nice images, and it is generally well-written. Here are my issues:

• 1.) Footnotes come after punctuation. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation.

• Done I ran Gimmetrow's ref fixer, and found no misplaced reference marks. There is a misconception that ref marks can never be used within a sentence: that is a misreading of WP:FN. There are times when it is appropriate to reference a statement, phrase, or word within a sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ok, I can see how I misread it since it is somewhat unclear. I interpreted, "Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation," to mean that it must come after at least a comma, but I guess that sentence just served to mean that they should not go before the punctuation. -Bluedog423^Talk 17:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• You're not the first - we need to figure out how to re-word that part of WP:FN, which is unclear and misleading. Of course, we would never find a mistake in a Wikipedia guideline or policy page, would we?  :0) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2.) Please alphabetize the categories and interlanguage links.
• 3.) External links within the article are generally seen as bad practice as I understand it.
• 4.) "Further reading" should come after "References"
  • DoneMadcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 5.) Don't link years unless they are truly significant. Common practice on most FA's is to not link them, unless an exact date is given. See also Only make links that are relevant to the context
  • Mostly done There could still be some hiding somewhere!Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 6.) The "Initiatives" section is so short; I don't know if it warrants its own section.
  • Response I moved this from "History" to "Faculty & Research", but I do not know if the new context is enough... Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 7.) There are too many details about the numbering of majors and courses. This is not one of the most important aspects of MIT. This could be included in a subarticle, if you want.
  • Done I shortened this up somewhat and moved some of the cruft on pronunciation to the student culture sub-page. It may need to be shortened up yet more.Madcoverboy 09:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 8.) Organization section is way too list-heavy. This should either be converted to prose or shortened significantly. External links, again, are not good practice.
• 9.) The pictures are nice, but they don't always refer to things that are in the text beside it. This is okay in some circumstances (although it should try to be avoided), but the caption should provide background as to what it is if its not mentioned in the text. For example, "Entrance on 77 Massachusetts Avenue" tells us very little. Is this an administrative building? What is there? "The interior of Lobby 7." What is Lobby 7 and why is it important?
• 10.) Please copyedit the text. There are some extraneous commas and some are missing, although this is not a major issue.
• 11.) The layout of pictures under organization is not aesthetically pleasing, in my opinion. Although this is a personal issue, so it could be easily disputed.
• 12.) Approximate numbers (such as grad and undergrad numbers) should be replaced with exact numbers since these are readily available.
  • Response As the numbers fluctuate year to year, the "approximate numbers" are meant to convey the scale of graduate vs. undergraduate education. The exact numbers are in the info box at the top.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 13.) Image:Harvard-MIT-coop.png does not have a fair use rationale, and I don't think it would even qualify as fair use for this article.
• 14.) Some sections don't flow that well. For example, "Collaborations" seems a bit choppy at times.
• 15.) A ranking from 1995 under the rankings? That's a bit old, don't you think?
  • Response. This was discussed on talk and given the (ostensible) neutrality of the source - The National Resource Council - it has remained in. Resting on laurels? Perhaps. NPOV? More than the rest of the rankings.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 16.) Don't start sentences with numerals. For example, "64 current faculty" should read "Sixty-four faculty."
  • DoneMadcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 17.) Image:MIT companies.png definitely does not fall under fair use and should be deleted.
  • Done Removed from the page. Will nominate for deletion later.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 18.) Be consistent on spelling out numbers. Numbers under 10 should definitely be spelled out, and above ten is up to you, but be consistent throughout the article. The article uses numerals in the "Faculty and Research" section, while spelling out numbers in the "Notable Alumni" first paragraph, for example.
  • Done Numerals now in "Notable Alumni".Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 19.) The gallery at the bottom of "Notable Alumni" is quite ugly. Should at least be centered and without a border, preferably.
  • Done Deleted. Pictures moved to body. Formatting needed to prevent picture from running over into References.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 20.) Image:MITengineerslogo.jpg needs a fair use rationale.
  • Done My hack at a fair use rationale, but I'm no lawyer.Madcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 21.) I'm not the biggest fan of the ordering of the sections. In my opinion, the order should be: "History," "Organization," "Campus," "Academics," "Faculty and Research," "Culture and Student Life," "Noted Alumni," "References," "Further Reading," "External Links." This is consistent generally with the order established by WikiProject_Universities. "Academics" could come before "Campus" if you really want.
  • DoneMadcoverboy 08:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Generally, this is a really good article, and I think it could pass as a FA with not that much more time invested. In regards to boosterism, I don't think it's that bad at all. MIT is a great institution, and neglecting to mention its prestigious reputation and the achievements of its faculty and students would be shortchanging it. The article needs to accurately portray the university for those who are completely unfamiliar with it (yes, there are some people in the world who have not heard of MIT, see State the obvious). Hence, illustrating the numerous accomplishments from MIT's faculty and students is important. Stating that MIT has a fantastic reputation in science and engineering is also very important, in my opinion. Obviously, including some criticisms are appropriate if there have been some major complaints or controversies throughout its history. But adding minor criticisms that have no real evidence just for the sake of maintaining "NPOV" is stupid. A thorough copyedit of the prose by somebody unfamiliar with the text also wouldn't hurt. -Bluedog423^Talk 03:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per incomplete citations, external links to unnecessary websites (video, subpages of MIT webpage, etc.), over-promoted alumni section (why can't you create a list article for that?), ext. links in the main article & some POV issues. Not good enough as an encylopaedic article, but rather a promotional booklet. — Indon (reply) — 09:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Response Alumni section cut down. I don't understand how any of the "subpages of MIT webpage" are unnecessary, or what these subpages even are - the pages under "External Links" are completely different organizations whose sites are just hosted under the same domain. What specific topics/subjects make it un-encylopaedic? Madcoverboy 23:27, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Answers

1. Re. external links. Subject is about MIT as an insitution, right? Ext. link to the official webpage (the main page) is okay, but not other subpages. Read again what wikipedia is not (WP is not a mirror). Are you going to replace the MIT website with this article?
2. One more iritating ext. link is 'Everything I learned at MIT' that goes to a personal homepage. So what does make this person so special? Why not the other MIT students/alumnis website?
3. And this link: The Vega Science Trust, freeview video of scientists including Mildred Dresslehaus and other MIT scientists. → goes to other university (??) What are you pointing readers to?
4. Most importantly is the abundance of ext. links farm in the main text. The article is full of external link spammings.
5. The Brass rat section is un-encyclopaedic topics for the subject, all statements in the Research accomplishments section are un-encyclopaedic unsourced statements and the Current initiatives section is brochure-like un-encyclopaedic section. Do you need other examples?

— Indon (reply) — 10:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object, incomplete referencing, and external jumps in the text - those should be converted to referenced statements, or Wikified. References like ^ Quotes and Stories about Building 20 are incomplete, so we don't know the strength/reliability of your sources without clicking on each link. We also don't know how many of the cites are to MIT sources. Who published those quotes and stories? Is there an author and a publication date? You provide no last access date on many websources. You don't need to use them, but the cite templates give you an idea of the kind of info you should supply on sources. For a school example on references, have a look at the work underway on Ohio Wesleyan University (not sure if all of its refs are OK yet, but it's getting there.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the reasons above, I agree with. no need to reiterate them here and be an echo. —ExplorerCDT 09:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

[edit] Lage Raho Munna Bhai

This article on an India film is having good reference, conforms FA norms and moreover this film have left a big impact on the viewers and have own a number of awards. I think this article should be made FA. Amartyabag (Talk) 07:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. Could you give a Hindi transliteration for the title? --Brand спойт 12:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not bad, but I don't think it is yet featured quality.

First of all, bad writing. For example, the second sentence says "In this film..." - well, duh! Of course its "in this film" - you havent talked about any other films. Similar issues exist throughout the article so I suggest referring it to the "League of copyeditors" or whatever they are called.

Secondly, the synopsis is much much much too long. It shuld not be more than 5 paragraphs. I read on the talkpage that you were influenced by the starwars articles, unfortunately I think they are very poor examples of featured articles. Tenebrae (film) is much nicer for dealing with a non-US film, and works as a much better guide. This article should cover all the subjects covered over there.

The characters list is also unnecessary. Any decent plot summary can introduce the important characters in the prose, making this horrible list redundant. If you must have a casting section, look at the prose version in the Halloween (film) article. Much nicer, no? "Production and prepartion" is also far too short. This should be one of the major sections in an article about a movie after all. Here it looks like an afterthought. I would like to see many more comments from the director, the writer and other production staff, not just the actors. Awards are part of a film's "Reception" so really they should be incorporated into the appropriate section. And again, preferably as prose.

The soundtrack again is a big list. Lists are bad! ;)

Also, i'm not sure but I think every image that is used as "fair use" (like these ones) needs to have a special rationale written about why it is fair use. One of the images is pushing the "Reception" header to the right also. All headers should be neatly aligned on the left though. The images are too big also. I think this is because you have specified the pixel size. If you remove that, it should automatically resize for all different brower shapes and sizes. So please remove that as well.

That is my initial impressions, without going into too much detail. Hope it helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.143.159 (talk • contribs).

All your problems, apart form referring it to the "League of Copyeditors" have been addressed. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Oppose, prose problems. Here are samples taken from the article:

1. The film will be remade in Telugu, Tamil, and Kannada.^[58] → prediction (not yet a fact).
2. Rajinikanth, Kamal Haasan and Jayam Ravi have all been considered to star in the Tamil version, ^[59] which will be directed by M. Raja ^[60]. → redundancy (bold) & also a prediction.
3. A 02 October 2006 article in The Washington Post,... → try with date.
4. In addition, according to Jahnu Barua, director of Maine Gandhi Ko Nahin Mara, a drama which utilized... → redundancy.

There are also noticeable WP:MOS problems (space between ref & punc) and some sections are still too stubby. Note to the editors, the above are just samples. I'm sure there are many more. Please don't fix only items above. Circulate first to other copyeditors to improve the prose and expand the stubby sections, before renominate it again. BTW, you should put this article into peer review first before. — Indon (reply) — 16:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• One of the better film articles, but definitely not there yet. 1) Needs significant copyediting. I saw many errors and examples of awkward phrasing in my initial look through. Just a quick example "The soundtrack is, however, released before the film and possesses no accompanying visuals." That has poor grammar and it doesn't really fit together as an idea. 2) Overall the prose doesn't flow well from idea to idea. There are a lot of short and choppy paragraphs and lists that compound the problem. 3) The minor characters should probably be excises from the character list and replace with good prose on the most important characters. Same for the soundtrack. I don't see any justification for discussing almost every song. A link to the soundtrack listing would be good though. 4) The awards section list is suboptimal. Try to write a pragraph or two about the awards instead of lists and how the film did. I reallize some other FA's use lists, but that doesn't make it a good thing. 5) Citing that it is available on DVD is a little strange. Of course it is, are any films not these days? When was the DVD release date? 6) Needs a much shorter plot summary, shoot for about half the current amount. The other material that is covered is much more important. 7) I reallize it was recently released, so there's not much if any coverage on it in books, but really work to find the highest quality sources available. That's really critical for a topic like this. Great base to work from, keep up the good work. - Taxman ^Talk 03:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Updated based on Nobleagle's comment and clarified a point. - Taxman ^Talk 23:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  Great improvements. I'd still say the plot summary should be 20-30% shorter, but I'll let other's weigh in. Still a lot of work needed on the flow of the prose, too many short, one and two sentence paragraphs that all need to be expanded, merged with related material, or removed. Even the second lead section paragraph is an example. The remakes section is also. It should be merged into another section most likely, since there's not going to be enough material for more than a paragraph. - Taxman ^Talk 23:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  I have attempted to address your concerns 2 and 5. 5 is fine but if there's still some concern over short and non-fluent paragraphs and sentences then please tell me which sections they are in and I'll fix them. I understand your point number 7, but I would like you to tell me which sources would be necessary to replace to make progress in this FAC. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

  There's six or seven paragraphs that qualify, from the second paragraph of the lead to the first paragraph of theh Production and preparation section to both paragraphs in Cinematic and musical allusions. In addition both of those sections are too small to justify they're own subsection as is Box office and ratings and Remakes. If the idea is not important enough to have a couple paragraphs of space devoted to it, then it doesn't justify it's own section. Everything must be prioritized according to importance to the subject. Something has to be more important to justify more space and a subsection. Also the last paragraph in Reception is just one sentence. I haven't had a chance to re-read all of the prose, but there's no substitute to reading through sentence by sentence and seeing how they flow together as ideas. I can't fully fix it myself because I don't know the subject all that well. As far as sources, I don't know which ones to tell you to replace, just to find the best available. - Taxman ^Talk 17:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• CONDITIONAL OPPOSE. While a good article, and rather well-written (I wouldn't quite say brilliant, but I won't hold it against this article as it is quite better than average). Images need to be better spaced in the article for balance and aesthetics. Right now, they're grouped in clusters, not spread out evenly throughout the article. Size/pixel parameters for thumbnail images should be removed to accomodate of user preferences/defaults. Some words that an native Indian would know (likely Hindi), are not adequately or sufficiently translated or explained in English, and make sections (especially plot and cultural impact) incomprehensible for non-Indian readers, or those not familiar with Indian culture. Fix these, and I will rescind my opposition. —ExplorerCDT 09:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• I believe I have addressed your concerns. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:57, 14 January 2007.

[edit] Economy of the People's Republic of China

Nomination for Featured Status. --Jones2 11:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The citations need some work. A lot of them are just plain external links. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it supposed to be like that? --Jones2 12:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that the formatting should be consistent. Using footnotes also ensures that there's proper room for information about which version of the website that the information was taken from. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Switches between inline citations and external jumps, and even when combined, those still only add up to 13 references for a very long article. -- Kicking222 14:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kicking222. Rlevse 16:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per Kicking222. --tennisman sign here! 18:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object 1a and 1c. Here are examples just from the lead.
  • I balked at the very first words: "For the purpose of this article, the economies of the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau are treated separately from the rest of the People's Republic of China, and are excluded from this article." Remove either the first phrase (and "and" at the end), or the last phrase—prefereably remove the first.
  • "As of 2005, 70% of China's GDP is in the private sector. The smaller public sector is dominated by ..." By "smaller", are you telling us that 30 is less than 70? We don't need to be told that.
  • "These reforms started since 1978 has helped ..."—"Has"? Commas for nested phrase, please.
  • "To this end the authorities have ..." To what end? There are several candidates in the previous sentence.
  • Big referencing problems. Tony 00:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• OBJECT Chiefly because it doesn't meet 1(a) as it is not well written, compelling or brilliant. It reads like a dry economics lecture. And a badly written economics lecture at that. Now, having studied economics, I know that it is entirely possible to make the subject sound interesting. 1(b): This article is not comprehensive. Several sections (agriculture, labor) don't delve into the topic with any more than a perfunctory mention. Need more discussion of various sectors of the economy, historical dynamics, cliometrics, . Also, it doesn't meet 1(c) in that it is, aside from 5 current references, completely uncited. Lastly, no images, so it doesn't meet Criteria 3. Some pictures of modernized Chinese factories (esp. because of American outsourcing to china) would be appropriate. Perhaps a picture of the damming of the Yangtze River for power (causing pollution, ecological impact, social upheavel). Graphs and statistic boxes are o.k., but you need pictures. —ExplorerCDT 09:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object fails many of the Criteria, particularly the fact that it doesn't have any images, and there are some citation issues that need to be worked out. Everything else has been pointed out by Tony. Arjun 01:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Under-referenced with stylistic problems, such as external jumps. I remember I had consultated this article for an essaie of mine, and I'm afraid some data are not updated.--Yannismarou 14:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:35, 11 January 2007.

[edit] Folding@home

See the previous nomination archive Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Folding@home/Archive1. I have read Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article. Pursuant the FAC failure, I have gone through the article & expanded it. Self Nomination. --Foundby 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment User:Foundby has been indefinitely blocked for being a WP:SOCKpuppet of Endgame1, just like User:Records. Suggest speedy closing. AZ _t 23:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong object (speedy WP:SNOW).
• The WP:LEAD usually should be 4 paragraphs at most for most articles. AZ _t
  • How many paragraphs would you say it is right now? thnx--Foundby 18:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Most of the middle prose sections are completely underlinked, and need wikification. AZ _t
  • Could you please tell me which middle prose sections you are talking about? --Foundby 18:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm referring to pretty much everything under "WU" and "EUE". AZ _t 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • There are several stub sections: "Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each, " Types of EUEs" is one paragraph with two sentences, etc. AZ _t
        • I Merged EUE sections to remove stubiness; I merged some WU sections so it doesnt look stubby. Merged "Types of EUEs" with "Early Unit End". Fixed (Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each. Am I missing anything else? --Foundby 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• The majority of the article is undercited. AZ _t 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Finally, there are several other minor stylistic problems: instead of using two hyphens for a dash, use the &mdash; (—), as is used later in the lead; instead of "February of 2006", write "February 2006" (see MOS:DATE); and read about heading capitalization and articles ("the") in WP:MSH. AZ _t 16:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Nice article with interesting content but not properly organized, not properly referenced and not up to the writing standards. I understand the concerns about finding references which are not overly technical but still, there's got to be a way to avoid having no references whatsoever throughout the technical middle half. Also section titles should not be phrased as questions (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)) and one paragraph sections should be merged into more coherent units. I'm also not satisfied with the comprehensiveness of the article. In particular, the focus is mostly technical and there does not seem to be much said about the history of the project, its funding, its actual achievements and so on. Pascal.Tesson 19:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The reason why you may think it is overly technical now, is because of the last FAC, in which they said it doesnt have technical information.--Foundby 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Better Organization: I Merged EUE sections to remove stubiness; I merged some WU sections so it doesnt look stubby. Merged "Types of EUEs" with "Early Unit End". Fixed (Work Units" is two paragraphs with one sentence each. Am I missing anything else? --Foundby 15:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that encyclopedias shouldn't refer to the reader w/ "you"; for example, The name and project number of a particular WU does not tell you the specifics about that WU. -> The name and project number of a particular WU does not tell the user the specifics about that WU. More importantly, it should WP:NOT be giving advice to the reader: If you need to know why you were not awarded any credit you should ask on Folding-Community where a Moderator can lookup your submission with the Project, Run, Clone and Generation numbers of the respective WU. AZ _t
  • Fixed. --Foundby 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object yet again; long, disorganized, underreferenced, still not comprehensive. What this article needed was not a pile of stubby sections on the details of the work unit model, but information on the technical justifications for why the method works. Your enthusiasm for the article is appreciated, but again, it needs to be edited by an expert who is knowledgeable about the theory associated with this project, which is fascinating, and a major contribution to the fields of distributed computing and molecular dynamics. Opabinia regalis 02:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • From the titles of published material which can be downloaded from the site, the answers are amongst them: "Mathematical Foundations of ensemble dynamics.", "Atomistic protein folding simulations on the submillisecond timescale using worldwide distributed computing.", and "How well can simulation predict protein folding kinetics and thermodynamics?" are but some. http://folding.stanford.edu/index.html. Is this what you think must be added to the article? --Foundby 16:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Those would be a start. You absolutely can't get away without this one: Mathematical Foundations of ensemble dynamics. To be honest - and I don't intend to sound rude here - if you have to ask, you're probably not the expert I'm suggesting should write those sections. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah you are right I guess you are the expert here? I thought this FAC was going to be without prejudice. I was wrong. --Foundby 06:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, an important Note regarding the previous nomination: should this article become an FA at any point, the spammish behavior of User:Records in trying to get this article featured as a means of drumming up more F@H users is a substantial argument against ever putting this on the main page. I would oppose putting this on the main page, and comments to that effect were made during the previous nomination. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm crossing out the strong (just making sure that this wouldn't be a repeat of what happened in the prev. nomination w/ User:Records). It is headed towards the right direction and has potential, but it still needs more WP:LINKing and better WP:CITING. Please also read thru WP:MOS. AZ _t
  • Btw, please avoid bolding responses; other editors may mistake this for incivility. AZ _t 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who's going to claim that formatting is uncivil, but all the bolding and awkward indenting doesn't make this any easier to read. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to claim that bolding automatically means incivil. In this case, it doesn't appear to be so. --Cyde Weys 15:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Guess this is more of a general statement (see RfA). I'm convinced now that User:Foundby is a WP:SOCKpuppet of User:Endgame1/User:Records/Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Endgame1, so I'm changing my vote to strong/speedy WP:SNOW object. AZ _t 23:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The links to the various cores in the WU Processing section get redirected to Coree, which is a small Native American tribe. This should probably be fixed. Drooling Sheep 09:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Very few inline references, and majority of those that are included are from the creators of the software itself. Please incraese the density of refs, and their quality (proper scholarly independent publications). Few more images would be nice, too.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  18:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}
  • _{Well the lead scientist published over 100 articles in various Scientific Journals. The hard part would be incoporating them in the actual article without making a new section. This is because those Journal articles display the achievement so far, in minute detail, which is not understandable by a novice. --Foundby 18:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)}
    • _{To be fair, Piotrus, this is a scientific research project. Citing Pande's papers isn't like citing a company press release for information on the popularity of the company's software. That said, there are dozens of papers on the method and the results obtained with it; those should be cited in the article, not Pande's forum posts, emails, and website. Opabinia regalis 01:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)}

• Object. I thought the lead section was actually quite interesting; it provides a good summary of the Folding@Home project, and shows its origins, goals and results. I was hoping for more detailed information about all of that in the main body of the article. This was not to be, alas. The rest of the article reads more like a readme.txt that comes with the software than a comprehensive view of the F@H project. It focuses almost exclusively on highly technical and detailed aspects of the client software, and hardly spends any time on matters such as the project's origins, the people behind it, the goals, the results, the popular reception or comparisons with other distributed computing programs. Even when viewed as a purely software-oriented article it falls short, as the article tells next to nothing about the server-side of things; questions about where the data comes from, how it is distributed, and how the results are recombined and processed remain unanswered. It might be an idea to rename this article to "Folding@Home software", or something similar, and then create a completely new article about the "non-technical" subjects (in quotes, as protein folding simulation in itself is a highly technical subject matter, obviously). Otherwise, I'd say the current article needs extensive pruning, followed by the development of the other subject matters to make it comprehensive. --Plek 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually I respectfully disagree with Plek. I think keeping it to one article is a better Shrink, don't split approach. The comparison to readme.txt is very relevant: the article is in dire need of critical distance. I can't stress enough the need to get rid of that apparent citation from an email received by yourself (I suppose) attributed to "Vijay" (as opposed to Professor Pande). Pascal.Tesson 19:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy object per Plek. I agree that the entire article looks like it was copied from a readme and slightly changed. The entire text is difficult to understand for readers not familiar with the subject and filled with POV. There are also stubby sections and unreferenced facts, as well as plenty of WP:MOS problems. I suggest that the nominator would compare this to other featured articles we have such as Tourette Syndrome. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• I refuse to concede defeat. I insist the FAC continue. --Foundby 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• WP:POINT My Wikistress levels are rising, an issue important to me has been handled unfairly in my view. --Foundby 15:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question. Can you pls explain why you've blown out the entire Table of Contents of the WP:FAC page with these endless sections, and pls be considerate of other reviewers and remove them? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • NO answer, so I removed some of them. The inflammatory headings were dominating the FAC TOC, and not helping the article's candidacy (particularly since they don't even conform to WP:MSH). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The Early Unit End section has been copied from another wiki. That wiki and its content has been licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-alike licence. I don't know if that's if compatible with the GFDL. CloudNine 20:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• OBJECT Too many stubby sections. Fails 1(a). The lead is decently written, but the rest of the article is not. Reads like a training manual. Fails 3. No images. Fails 1(c). Not nearly enough referencing, does not comply with WP:CITE, etc. —ExplorerCDT 09:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] University College, Durham

Comprehensive and interesting (I hope!) article about one of the seveteen colleges at Durham University. Covers all aspect of student life and expalins its role in the unviersity. It also discusses the history of the college and wider issues such as the history of the college's buildings and its use by toursits and non-students.

A self-nomination, already a good article. I've never really been involved with FA's before, so I'm not sure what else I'm meant to put here! Hope you like it. --Robdurbar 16:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Please add full dates on last access dates for websites. I fixed your ref placement and section headings. Notable alumni needs to be cited. Sandy (Talk) 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've fixed the dates, based on the dates they were added to the page. I've also now added a lot of citations to the notable alumni, though one is missing a source. I DO recall reading all that on a site recently (not a Wikipedia mirror) but I can't for the life of me track it down; I will be able to though, I'm sure. --Robdurbar 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object, for now - Quite a comprehensive article, and well illustrated. However, the structure of the article could be improved - some of the sub-sections are too brief and stubby to stand alone, and should be merged, or better, expanded. Maybe alternate the alignment of the images so they dont overlap - 'Durham Castle gatehouse' is currently pushed under the infobox; should be aligned left.

Overall, the text needs a thorough copy edit:

• "The college was formed upon the creation of the university in 1832" - 'Upon' seems dated and overly formal, to my ears at least.
• "the university was always intended to be collegiate" - maybe 'origionally intended'.
• "Temporary accommodation for students was provided at the Archdeacon's Inn on Palace Green" - Needs to be clarified: temporarily between 1832 and 2006?
• "In 1837 the college and its students moved into their current location at Durham Castle" - Surely most of thoes students have passed away by now. Are they buried under Durham Castle?

Maybe this is nick picking, but the examples are from one half of an early paragraph, and similar problems continue through out. + Ceoil 00:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd quibble with your complaints about the perfectly good preposition 'upon', but your other comemnts are fair enough. I'd note that this has largely been written by myself so the writing style is probably fairly idosyncratic; going through the whole peer review/good article process has largely failed to encourage other writers.

I've given a brief copy edit though more is always possible, and I'll look into the sections; are there any you would suggest for merger? --Robdurbar 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

"Commercial activities and tourism" & "Lowe Library" are both stubs, and need to be expanded, merged or cut. In particular, Lowe Library - surely there is more to say on its current state than it provides access to core textbooks. You could take ideas from the main Library article etc, otherwise merge with "Buildings".

Re: 'upon', thats ok, but this was just an example taken from half of one paragraph to indicate work needed throughout the text. To take the 1st 3 sentences from the next para:

• "In 1846 the university's second college, Hatfield Hall, formed." - ...was formed, in 1946.
• "This split from Castle was due" - 'This split' - no previous mention of a split.
• "to the high costs involved in attending the college at the time - students were expected to provide servants and room furnishings" - implies cost were high because students were expected to provide servants and room furnishings.
• "During the rest of the nineteenth century" - For the remainder. + Ceoil 12:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I wasn't quibbling that there wern't inaccuracies. Oh, and the third one is correct - its quite expensive to provide servants and room furnishings! --Robdurbar 19:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, don't remember any servants or room furnishings when I was a student, but I take your point. My opinion however, is that that fact is not currently explicit in the text. I'm not suggesting at all that the article is inaccurate; it's certainly well researched, and I'd like to support promotion, if the prose was improved. + Ceoil 02:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for more comments - well there's only been two, and only one has given a definate yay/nay opinion. I'd hate for this candidature to die just because of a lack of response. --Robdurbar 22:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Robdurbar, will have another read of this tomorrow. + Ceoil 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The article has improved since I left my comments, but the prose are not quite FA standard yet; suggest leaving a note at the WikiProject League of Copyeditors for help on this. I would also like to see certain sections expanded, as noted above. + Ceoil 20:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Object. Too many sections with small paragraphs with only a couple of sentences. Low Library is 4 sentences. Commercial activities, &c. is 6. The section titles almost look bigger than the section content. Writing doesn't stand out as brilliant and compelling, but it's slightly better than average. The Lead should have a paragraph that makes University College, Durham stand out academically...what makes it unique. Like faculty members, research, that UCD is known for. I can gather this article is not comprehensive (does not meet the 1(b) criteria) when i can't find what I'm looking for in a university article (an in depth discussion of academics, research, faculty, etc.) but I learn that I can rent the place out for conferences and weddings. The notable alumni section only mentions a half dozen people, and recaps their bios at length. Needs much more work, significant expansion. There has to be more about UCD than this, and it has to be better organized. I suggest redoing the article with the section heirarchy at Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities. Nice pictures, but they need better captions.—ExplorerCDT 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Bear in mind that this is a college in a collegiate university - so it doesn't have academics/research departments etc. I've added a clarification to this end in the introducion. --Robdurbar 09:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• That doesn't mean UCD doesn't do anything to further civilization. They have to do something that makes them stand out, or they'd be out of business. I bring nothing from the article about what UCD has contributed. Even though it's not completley analogous, the Rutgers University article mentions in the lead that Streptomycin was discovered there. Even Oriel College, below, which is more analogous to UCD, mentions that the Tracterians (Keble and Newman) of the Oxford Movement did some work there. Something intellectual or monumental has had to happen at UCD. So far, I don't leave this article with even a little factoid I can use while drunk at a cocktail party, in case I happen to run into and attempt to "pick up" a British girl who might remotely know UCD. —ExplorerCDT 10:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Book of Abraham

This article reached GA in August 2006 and has been very stable since then. I submit this article for anyone to make comments and state whether it is worthy of FA or not. It went through two peer reviews and no one commented on it. Considering that it is a controversial topic, maybe I should be happy that there were no comments? --RelHistBuff 06:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm not sure what's wrong with the article, but something about it does not sit right. It strikes me that the organization might need some rethinking. Perhaps start with the a description of the text itself and its contents, which seem to me underdeveloped; then the place in Mormon theology (which could be further elaborated); then an origins section, which lays out Smith's claims, then the rediscovery of the rolls, scholarly analysis, mormon apologetics. Finally, I can't figure out what those images are. Are those Josephus Smith's versions (as he published them), or from the papyrus? Can you get pictures of both side-by-side? The apologetics section now is in point form, which makes it look like students' notes, rather than a good article. note 4: is mormonwiki a WP:RS? My guess is the references should be looked at. Semperf 06:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. Finally some feedback. OK, I see your points on underdeveloped parts, i.e., text/contents and its place in overall theology. I will try to work out a better reordering of the sections once I worked on those two. I tried to make it clear that the figures are from the book as sections 1-3 cover the "Book of Abraham", while sections 4-5 cover the "papyrus". --RelHistBuff 07:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. 'Content of the Book of Abraham' section is way too short, merge with another section or expand it. Lead needs references. Ref formatting looks inconsistent. — Wackymacs 14:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Sunday Bloody Sunday (song)

Self-nomination (with much additional help). This article achieved good article status in June and has undergone considerable work since (see diff). Peer-reviewed in October, I and others have made improvements to the article using current song FAs as guides. I now feel it meets the FA criteria. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 00:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Most of the article was very good, but I'm concerned about the bottom third of it. For one thing, I wonder about comprehensiveness here; the "Covers" section of the article is basically two lines. Do we really have nothing at all to say about covers of this song? See Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) for an example. If we need the unreferenced "Cultural references" section, and I really hope that we don't, breaking it up by media means that the reader has two sentences per section break. The only thing I'd keep here is the The Party Party video, if we can find some third party reference for it, which could expand the "Covers" section. Incidentally, why are we linking to this random blog's hosting of the video? To sum up, I'm left with the feeling that a bunch of junk got moved to the end of the article, someone loosely organised it, and that thinly disguised trivia is, unfortunately, the impression that I come away with as a reader, rather than the good material from the body of the article. Jkelly 00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the quick response and good points. I'm rather inclusionist, and I am probably responsible for the poor list-to-prose conversion of a trivia section that became "Cultural references." I've moved the Party Party parody up to the Covers section, and removed the rest of the section. As far as covers go, many of them are not very notable. Phil Coulter and Richard Cheese are probably the most interesting cover artists: Coulter has developed a decent following as an Irish songwriter and performer, and Richard Cheese's satire of the song probably merits inclusion. I can't even find a reference for the Alvin and the Chipmunks cover (excepting the unreferenced Wikipedia discography page and its mirrors), so I've removed mention of that as well. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 01:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: firstly nice work. This article used to be terrible!! It's come a long way in a short time.

• Article is broad in scope.
• Well laid out with logic.
• Your referencing is excellent. It is thorough and has excellent formatting.
• Musical structure and lyrics is particularly good. well done
• Length in my opinion is perfect for subject which is afterall just a song - albeit one of the most important songs from one of the most important bands.

• Suggestions:

• Can you please confirm the citation for:U2 knew when they decided to record "Sunday Bloody Sunday" that its lyrics could easily be misinterpreted as rebellious, which could jeopardize their personal lives. Some of The Edge's original lyrics, which spoke out against violent rebels, were omitted in order to protect the group.? It says it is from U2 by U2 but I cannot see it in my copy. What page? Where on the page. It's a good quote, shame if we can't reference it.
• I'm not clear on when the single was released in the UK. Perhaps I have missed this.
• Would you want to swap the video and single sections around? This is only a minor thing, and is probably just my personal opinion.
• You may need to find a really good word smith just to polish the words and phrasing but not to touch the actual content.

--Merbabu 14:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's possible I mis-referenced the bit about his original lyrics. I don't actually own U2 by U2 (yay for being a poor student!)--I borrowed it from my local library a few weeks ago and it's (unfortunately) checked out by another patron at the moment. I'm certain the information is true, but I'll have to do some more searching for the original reference.
• I'm not sure the single was released in the UK at all, but radio airplay alone may have allowed it to chart at #7. I'm inclined to trust U2Wanderer.org, but the information seems to be conflicting.
• I don't have any opinion one way or the other on the order of the video and single sections...I'd leave that to the discretion of other editors. Thanks for the suggestions! McMillin24 _contribs^talk 18:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

• McMillin24, I think you're right that it was never a UK single. See my post at Talk:Sunday Bloody Sunday (song). This needs to be resolved. Wasted Time R 15:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - There are three quotes in there I'd prefer to become prose. Wiki-newbie 15:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support - nice comprehensive article for a single song, but I still have minor objections:

1. Remove the link to Google Video as a source. There are some concerns about copyright infringements in Google Video, because video licenses cannot be verified there and we must not advocate for that.

I've removed the ref, as well as the sentence since I can't think of another source that could verify the info. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Per WP:EL, remove the external links directly to a webpage that requires external media application (the video link). Or replace it with the official website that release the video.

— Indon (reply) — 17:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also removed this one. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Moderate support - Wiki-newbie 19:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - (have copy edited this article over last two weeks) - The lead is not a sufficent overview of the main text, and the prose remains weak in areas. 'Live performances' should be merged into one heading. Would change my vote to support if these issues are resolved. + Ceoil 00:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've addressed two of these issues to the best of my ability. Do you have any specific examples of weak prose? McMillin24 _contribs^talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

McMillin, have made an edit to correct some of the sentences I was thinking of. Here are a few others:

• "After Bono had re-written the lyrics" - Unclear; was it a complete re-write, or was some of Edge's text retained?
• "and the guitar parts are muted. This part of the song" - 'Part' apprears twice in two consecutive sentences. Maybe 'passage', but its a little high brow for the subject.
• "Bono rewrote The Edges's initial lyrics...but he has said that the band was too inexperienced at the time to fully realise that goal" - Not sure what this means, was the whole band working on the lyrics, or was it just Bono who lacked experience?
• "As the song progresses, the lyrics and guitar become more furious" - 'Furious' seems POV to me.
• "while the band vamped three chords—A minor, C major, and F major. As the band vamped, Bono would sing "no more!" with the audience" - 'vamped' appears twice.
• "because the song was "made real" with the performance in Denver" - Maybe I missed it, but the Denver concert is not previously detailed. I know its 'Bonospeak', but 'made real' is hopelessly vague.
• "Following their original intent" - Unclear. 'This intent'?
• "A memorable mid-song message" - Memorable according to whom?
• "explain a headband" - He was explaining why he was wearing a headband.
• "The Coexist symbol is trademarked in the United States by an LLP in Indiana,[26][27] and the original artwork was created in 2001 by a Polish artist" - This seams tacked on, and could be better integrated with the previous sentence.
• "As with the 2001 shows, the Vertigo tour saw the song applied...During 2006 Australian shows" - 'Shows' appreas twice.

Just as a seperate point, it might serve the article to include a brief section on where the song appears in the band's timeline, and to further develop on how it helped in exposing U2 to the mainstream. + Ceoil 20:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support MelicansMatkin 23:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? It needs to be discussed with your reasoning. By simply writing "strong support" your comment is just a vote and this is NOT a voting process. Merbabu 02:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll echo Merbabu's comments here. Why does the article merit strong support? McMillin24 _contribs^talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose This was hard to oppose. I am a huge U2 fan, and U2 is one of only two main subject areas I spend my wiki time on. I think this article has come a long way after a lot of hard work, the eds involved should be proud of there efforts. After the main U2 article, it is almost certainly the best U2-related article on wikipedia and in my opinion certainly deserving of Good Article Status. But, I just don't see it as being an example of wikipedia's "very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation." [15] Is it really the best of wikipedia? I think not. It is certainly very good though. The "bets of wikipedia" quote is enough not to support this FAC, but lets look at the individual criteria too:

(1a) "Well written" means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant.

FailSorry, the pose is certainly not brilliant. THe prose is average, no glaring problems, but nothing that makes it stands out from the crowd. This was one of my comments from a week or so ago (see above).

(1b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.

Fail. This one probably isn't that hard to fix. I think it could do with more on:

• the inspiration for the song. Ie, the Troubles and the U2's reaction to them. Of course, not too much, as The Troubles have their own articles, but there should be enough hear for a holistic read to give the general idea - we should only have to click on wiki links for extra information - not a basic explanation.
• U2's reaction to the above
• the development of the song - this bit is already interesting, but more would be good
• More interpretation of the lyrics - IF it can be referenced appropriately.

• I'll be working to address the first three bullet points. It's hard to concretely reference any interpretations of the lyrics, because many of them differ. Ultimately, any conglomeration of viewpoints will likely have a bit of original research used to tie them together, which is certainly not what we want to see in the article. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

(1c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately present the related body of published knowledge.

Weak pass I suspect that if editors were really diligent, they would turn up more material that would be very beneficial to the article. But references seem just OK for purpose - some are excellent too, no poor references though.

(1d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias (see neutral point of view); however, articles need not give minority views equal coverage (see undue weight).

• Pass

(1e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day; vandalism reverts and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.

• Pass

(2) It complies with the standards set out in the manual of style and relevant WikiProjects, including:

• Pass

(3)It has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status.

• Pass with comment - related to my comments on background info on the Troubles, if this section was flahed out, a picture depicting some aspects of events - if available - would be great.

• (4)It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

• Weak pass As already mention - it could have a bit more in some areas - see 1 (b) above. To its credit, it doesn't go into boring detail listing which part of the concert it was played in and general set list trivia that is so common in other U2 song articles.

Sorry, to be a stick in the mud, but I think it is better to be honest that than just voting for the article along the lines of "i like it [16]" Merbabu 02:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• On the contrary, you have offered several suggestions during this discussion and have made many steps toward improving the article. I'm grateful for your work and your honest opinion. McMillin24 _contribs^talk 14:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• No worries. Sorry i didn't put this forward earlier but it was a little hard. As for your comments about original research creeping in to tie things together, i certainly don't think it is inevitble and with other editors watching over I wouldn't be too concerned. The editing process is always better with collaboration anyway. See how you go and I can help out.Merbabu 15:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Quick appraisal: Great song deserving a better article. Why?: Excessive referencing in the lead. While everything should be cited per WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:V, etc., this is just too distracting and a well-written lead shouldn't need to have practically every sentence footnoted (see talk page for WP:LEAD and policies mentioned there). Too many sections/subsections with too short paragraphs/not enough substance...two sentence paragraphs/sections, etc. Writing is not brilliant or compelling per 1(a). Discussion of lyrics, impact, allusions, political situation that caused the song is not a comprehensive treatement of the subject required by 1(b). Images, o.k. but their placement (and with sample box) in the article jars left-to-right for an unaesthetic, unbalanced presentation. Image captions are not even barely passable, in my opinion. All thumbs should not have size parameters to accomodate user preferences. A 400px image (Sunday Bloody Sunday riff A.png) takes up 2/3rd of the text in a page layout constrained by a viewer who prefers 800x600 resolution. —ExplorerCDT 22:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Eric Clapton

This article is very well writen, (never mind about the cites), and everything is in the right spot. Dennis Kussinich 08 23:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Suggest a peer review first. There are several problems with the sections: see WP:TRIV, WP:GTL, and WP:MSH (caps, articles). There are several [citation needed] tags all over the article, a couple of external link jumps to be converted to refs, and most of the refs are hard to read due to the excessive blue linking (try using the |author= and |date= parameters of {{Web cite}} to resolve this). Several images fail WP:FUC, including Image:Clapton is God Graffiti.jpg and Image:Claptonstrat.jpg. AZ _t 01:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Mostly uncited, contains a trivia section, sections should be reordered to WP:GTL, reference formatting is incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Whole sections are unreferenced, contains a trivia section, and needs some stylistic fixes. ← ANAS ^Talk? 13:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Uncited, listy, trivia sections.--Yannismarou 15:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Severe lack of citations. Needs a trivia-ectomy. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 19:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object Needs some major referencing. Hello32020 21:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. One of the few citations in the text actually refutes the claim it is supposed to be supporting (that there was a "Clapton is God" graffiti craze). -- Qarnos 07:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. The article is basically uncited and has a long, listy trivia section. -- Underneath-it-All 20:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• STRONG OBJECT. Too much trivia, not enough referencing. Writing not compelling or brilliant. —ExplorerCDT 10:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Taylor Hicks

This has already went through peer review and good articles. The editors have done a nice job with it. I didn't write this article but I fixed some minor things like tables and the like. Even if this fails fac, it's good to see how outside editors reviewed it. Pink moon 1287^{(email•talk•user)} 16:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The Lede is too short. I'd like to see a source for the last sentence of the first and third paragraph of the American Section. Also, as he is still popular, and as such the article is still a current event (with some parts of the article referring to future events). This could cause some stability problems. At a quick glance, though, the article looks pretty good. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Please make all the citations consistent and fully cited. Also full dates should be wikilinked and cite 25 is original research since it refers to no source except your own common knowledge. - Tutmosis 20:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Wikipedia is not a blog, webpage, or for commercial promotion or advertisements - it's an encyclopedia. External jumps should be eliminated:
  • Hicks, like most contemporary and modern musicians, uses the internet as an option for marketing and promotion. In late October 2006, Rehearsals.com started launching weekly videos from Hicks's rehearsals dated October 4. In November, fan blog Gray Charles signed a contract with Hicks and his management team, making Gray Charles the Official Taylor Hicks Weblog.
• External sites are linked in references and External links, and then, subject to WP:EL and WP:NOT. The WP:LEAD is inadequate, and what makes the Gray Charles weblog a reliable source for a bio? Since references are not correctly formatted, hard to tell if others are blogs or unreliable sources as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• That paragraph was not originally there, and I had found it recently. It was probably a vandal. Pink moon 1287^{(email•talk•user)} 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I see. Well, it's good to closely tend to FAs and FACs. If you can complete the rest of your references to include full biblio info, it will be easier to check the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. I'll confess to being one of the major contributors on this article. Even I still think there's a long way to go before it can be FA, and we still need a lot more information on his career as it progresses. I think the article is at the best we can do right now, given that he's pretty much just starting out his career. The concerns I can identify right now, other the ones that have just been mentioned, are:
  • "Early life" and "Early career" sections still need to be improved (I've already rewritten the latter from its earlier conception, and I'm still not entirely convinced.) I honestly think we'll only be able to come up with satisfactory write-ups for those sections once his book has been released.
  • I think the "Life after Idol" section and "2006-2007" sections can be merged and whittled down. The last two paragraphs of the latter section can be deleted entirely; I won't cry over them. We need to be careful of what kind of details are included in the article—they have to be relevant to his career as a musician. Like how him being Grand Marshal at Mardi Gras can be left out, but mention of his tour is a must.
  • Since most of the references are my fault, I'll be helping clean them up, of course –NicolaM 16:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Flabby and full of redundancies. Here are random examples from the top.
  • "for the span of a decade"—Spot the three redundant words.
  • "he was immediately signed to Arista Records"—Perhaps this is the lingo, but I'd have thought it was "was signed up".
  • "influences derived from classic soul, blues, and R&B music have earned him a following of devout fans"—No, redundant: "the influences OF classic ...". "Earned him a devout following".
  • Really, who cares whether he was born at 3.30 or 5.30 AM or whenever; make it tighter and don't waste the readers' time with needless details.
  • Why on earth are "blond", "dark gray", and "pitches"—and many other dictionary terms—linked. Please sift through the whole thing and minimise. The link to "absolute pitch" is probably worth keeping, so why dilute it with useless links?
  • "...at the age of 18, and later taught himself to play guitar when he was 19"—Later? So 19 wouldn't precede, 18 would it?

Sorry to be snippy, but this is just not good enough. Please find someone with fresh eyes to go through the whole artice. Tony 11:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object I was thinking of rejecting this article at Good Articles, but someone promoted it before I got around to it (one of those "I'll do it tomorrow" things). Lots of problems, but chiefly my concern is that it miserably Fails 1(a). Badly written article. Too many one-sentence or two-sentence paragraphs. Paragraphs with more than one or two sentences badly flow and lack connectivity and focus. Prose far from compelling or brilliant. I can't believe that this article has external links to myspace.com. That's low. —ExplorerCDT 10:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 22:34, 10 January 2007.

[edit] Vivah

I hereby nominate the article Vivah for a Featured Article. It is referenced properly, mainly with articles from Indian newspapers (as the article is about an Indian film). I think it's decently written and all the pictures have a proper fair use rational. It has had a peer review and besides a problem with the references (which has been solved), there were no complains. Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong object. WP:LEAD is inadequate (but since there isn't much to the article, it would be hard to summarize the article); section headings don't conform to WP:MOS, WP:MSH; has a trivia section, footnotes are not properly formatted, and the article is very sparse on any actual prose, referring to several other works without weaving a story relating to those works. A red link in the lead should really be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed trivia section, removed red links (created articles for them where information was found), renamed section headings (please name the ones that don't conform). As for footnotes: Will format them tomorrow according to those found here. Regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong object WP:SNOW. It's not really readable, and it's unfair to ask folks at this point to review it for FA status. KP Botany 04:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong object Not even sure that the writing is up to the good article standards: orphaned paragraphs, short sections, too little critical commentary, and so on... Not that the article is horrendous or anything but this does not have a snowball's chance in hell of achieving FA-status right now. Pascal.Tesson 08:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object: Getting there, but a one-¶ lead, some stubby sections and so forth worry me. (Besides, the film was released only two months ago; current events are not suitable for featured article topics.) I suggest you withdraw sooner or later, and refer to WPj Films' peer review. --Slgrandson (page - messages - contribs) 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per above.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object per above, I believe you should convert this into a peer review Plumcouch. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object- The article must be peer reviewed and then may be later upgraded. And Objects as above. Amartyabag (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] U2

A lot of work has been done on this one in the past weeks (references, pictures, cleanup). I think it is ready to be considered.Buc 18:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object, just after a quick look-lead is too short and doesn't summarize the article, citation needed tags need to have refs found and made.Sumoeagle179 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: would like to see the fair use media files placed in context at appropriate points within the article, rather than in its own section. The JPS^{talk to me} 19:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Done Buc 19:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny, the excerpts are gone. Wiki-newbie 09:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose because the "Campaigning" section really needs to be a couple of paragraphs, and not so listy. If not for that, I'd probably support. Tuf-Kat 04:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] DuMont Television Network

A well-written and comprehensive article on the now-forgotten television network, during TV's "Golden Age" (1940s-1950s).

I did not write this article, but I think it exemplifies good writing on Wikipedia. The prose is well-written in a way that I think is easily accessible to people not familiar with TV industry terminology without being "dumbed down". I did add the references and notes, and a few details, during this article's peer review, so in that sense, it is a self-nom.

Wikipedia has never had a featured article on a TV network; this is one of the few Good Articles in that subject. I've asked for suggestions during the peer review and from members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations team and this article is the result, with an expanded lead, inline cites, and wikilinks on difficult terminology. 34 "Citation Needed" templates were placed on this article during Peer Review, and each of those now has at least one citation. Please support this article on an oft-neglected subject; don't mind the cobwebs! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object - 1c, (switching now to Strong object, unresolved, article fails WP:RS) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
  • (This reference is a dead link to a personal website) Podrazik, W.The Death of a Network: The DuMont Network

Removed. already had another ref there anyway. No reason to object for this reason now, right?

• • (This is a blog.) Cumming, A."RIP DuMont" New York City Radio Gazette. January 31, 2006. Retrieved on December 28, 2006.

Removed, and replaced with a different source.

• • (These appear to be something like comments submitted by listeners - not likely a reliable source) Pittsburgh Area Radio and TVApril 13, 2002. Retrieved on December 28, 2006.

This was just a mistake in the editing process. Reference now points to the Pittsburgh TV station page. Thanks.

• • (This reference doesn't include the webpage title, making it harder to find the page if the link should change or go dead) UCLA Film and Television Archive. Retrieved on December 28, 2006.

Full title now included, thanks.

• • (Who published this?) The Forgotten Network: DuMont and the Birth of American Television

Published by Temple University Press, as now stated in the article. Thanks.

• • (What does this verify?) Smethers, J. "Unplugged: The Growth of Rural Midwestern Television Before Network Interconnection, 1949-1952" The School of Journalism and Broadcasting. Oklahoma State University. 1995. Retrieved on December 28, 2006.

Replaced this reference with two more appropriate links, including AT&T's website. Thanks.

• • (This is a personal, AOL members, website) Ingram, C. DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site. Retrieved on December 28, 2006.

Sandy (Talk) 03:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply: The UCLA Film and Television Archive is the title of the web page of the UCLA Film and Television Archive.

The title is Collections - Early television. The publisher is The UCLA Film and Television Archive. Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarke Ingram is an acknowledged expert on the DuMont Network [17][18]. If Mr. Ingram is widely used as a reliable source (and he is) there's no reason his web-site isn't also reliable.

It's still a self-published, AOL members website, and he is described as a "Dumont buff" - not good enough to satisfy me it rises to the level of WP:V and isn't just self-published <whatever>, sorry. Sandy (Talk) 04:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Unplugged" paper was to specifically address the statement "It would be another two years before the West Coast could get live programming, but this was the beginning of the modern era of network television.", but I guess a different source could be used, because the primary focus in that paper is the Midwest coaxial connection.

Thanks for those fixes to the page! Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but Gimmetrow's marvelous ref fixing script gets the credit. Sandy (Talk) 04:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, please thank Gimmetrow's ref fixing script for me. :) I believe I have fixed everything you objected to, except for your objection to Clarke Ingram's site as a reliable source. Mr. Ingram is well-respected in the field of broadcasting, and has been in the business for decades.[19] It would be difficult to find a better or more comprehensive source on the DuMont Network, a network which is not well-remembered and which has been defunct for over 50 years. Ingram's site is also the #1 ghit for "Dumont Television Network", and was most likely the first site on-line to mention the duMont network. If you have objections to other aspects of this article which would prevent it from becoming a Featured Article, I will gladly modify the article accordingly, to the best of my ability. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Given the article's overall quality, I'd like to give it my support. I have one major hesitation, however. While your argument on behalf of Ingram is persuasive, I don't understand why it's not possible, before FA status is awarded, to verify all the information he provides by reference to Ted Bergmann's book The DuMont Television Network: What Happened?, which Ingram himself characterizes as authoritative.—DCGeist 17:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Good question - I'll have another look after that's resolved. Sandy (Talk) 19:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If this is required, I will verify all of the information by reference to Ted Bergmann's book, then, and include the refs. But it will take me a couple of days to order and receive the book. I should note Mr. Ingram uses Mr. Bergmann as a source on his site, and that Mr. Ingram and Mr. Bergmann are in contact with one another, as indicated here, but since there are still lingering doubts about Mr. Ingram's site, all I can do is acquiesce.Firsfron of Ronchester 22:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply Just to be clear, I don't have particularly serious doubts about Ingram's site. But whenever you can verify, you really must verify. One of North America's greatest cultural critics, Jane Jacobs, inspiringly left a major error of anthropological interpretation (one that happened to be shared by many specialists in the field) in the main text of her final book, Dark Age Ahead, so she could direct the reader to a note that begins: "I have learned yet again (this has been going on all my life) what folly it is to take anything for granted without examining it skeptically...." She was eighty-eight years old and one of the most respected writers in the world when she did that. Not only may you discover an error Ingram has made either directly or in interpreting Bergmann (or a slip you have made in interpreting Ingram), who knows what else you may discover during the process of verification. Vital or just intriguing information that Ingram overlooked? A more appropriate area of emphasis? New lines of inquiry? It's worth it--not to satisfy Sandy and me, but to do the best by both the article and by what I apprehend to be your admirable goal of being a truly diligent researcher and contributor.—DCGeist 23:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, of course. I've ordered the book, expedited, and will add the references and anything else that must be added as soon as it comes in. Please please please check back in a few days. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Will do. I look forward to it.—DCGeist 03:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've replaced the references which used the DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site with references from Bergmann and Skutch's book, where applicable. You can see here the changes I've made. Almost all of the DuMont Web Site's claims were substantiated by the text, with the following exceptions:

• Bergmann claimed KCTY-TV in Kansas City broadcast for only three months, while Ingram claimed two. I've used the Bergmann number, with reference.
• Ingram claimed the DuMont kinescopes were stored at an ABC network warehouse. Bergmann makes no mention of what happened to the kinescopes. "Television Heaven" says the kinescopes were picked up at the loading dock in trucks, taken to the river, and dumped into Upper New York Bay. I've removed any mention of ABC there (unverified), and referenced "Television Heaven" for the rest.
• Ingram claims ABC required advertisers to buy a must-buy station line-up. Bergmann doesn't mention ABC's sales tactics here (which was a surprise, given his advertising sales position at DuMont at the time), so I've removed the unsupportable passage, reworking the end of the paragraph to reflect the missing sentence.
• The only DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site citation that is left in there is the link Ingram makes between DuMont and Fox, because that comes directly from his site. If even this is still unacceptable, I will remove it.
• I've added the link to the List of DuMont programs, which is mostly still red (sorry).

If there are further objections, please let me know. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Back for another look - improved, but still not there:

• Websource references and footnotes need full bibliographic info and last access date, example, The DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site and Space Hero Files: Captain Video and Garvin, Glenn. "Who Killed Captain Video? How the FCC strangled a TV pioneer". Reason, March 2005. (latter has full biblio info, but no last access date).
• Please put Refernces in alphabetical order.
• All book citations need page numbers, example, these need to be split out by page, Bergmann (2002), p. x in the footnote, with the book listed in the References: a b c d e f g h i Bergmann, Ted, and Ira Skutch. The DuMont Television Network: What Happened? Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8108-4270-X. Same for all books.
• Another footnote with no biblio info, no last access date: ^ DuMont Television Network Historical Web Site
• Please double check all of your references, and provide page nos for books - the above list is samples only.
• I see a lot of uncited text, so please run through again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for looking, Sandy. Thank you for your patience. I tried to match the citation sytles to Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style as closely as possible. I've included pages numbers whenever possible. I used the citation templates for the reference section. If I counted correctly (not saying I have, this late at night), there are 47 in-line citations now. On my monitor, that shows up as roughly one citation per inch of text, or one cite per every few sentences. I tried to cover everything. DCGeist says below I shouldn't add too many more citations, but since you wanted more, I figured maybe a compromise, and added more. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed your first three references, completing two as examples only of information that still needs to be completed (publisher, access date, and one title doesn't agree with the website, so I'm not sure what's up there). With respect to references, I don't count, tally, or look at density per line or page or whatever - I look at facts that should be cited in the text. I added a couple of sample cn tags at the very bottom of the article, so as not to muck up more of your article with tags. Also, for those of us not familiar with the industry, would you mind defining terms like O&O the first time they're encountered? If you feel that the wikilink is sufficient, I won't object, but it would be helpful to clarify lingo for general readership. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes, Sandy. For web site references, I have fixed each one so that they appear to resemble the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29. The examples do not show "publisher". For Footnote [2], The Forgotten Network is a book. The first chapter is available online in PDF format. There doesn't appear to be anything on WP:CITE about how to treat books which are partly available on-line, which was why I was treating it as a book, but with an external link. I didn't think the "retrieved on" date would be required. Thank you for including it.

An example of how to cite a book that is also available online is on the same page (above) where you found the inaccurate example of how to cite a website. If you read the rest of that page thoroughly, you'll find ample links and references to adequate information about citing websites, which always include mention of the website publisher. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Response: The full book isn't on-line, only the first chapter. If I understand you correctly, you are stating Wikipedia's own citation example shows an incorrect example of how to cite a web-site. This, frankly, puzzles me, as this example has been on there, unchanged in format, for over a year. Despite modifications to other parts of the page, this has remained the same. It appears to me, then, that on-line sources do not require a reference which includes publisher.Firsfron of Ronchester 20:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I am stating. Since "it's a Wiki", I don't know why you find it so surprising that one poorly-placed example may be wrong - happens all the time - made worse in this case by the fact that even the example is to a long-dead link. Every other link or reference you can follow on that page (or any other page about referencing) will lead to a correct referencing style for websites, no matter which source, style, or version you choose, including the cite templates. I don't believe you will find a referencing style anywhere that does not indicate the publisher of the website in some form or another. You are sticking with one example (in contrast to numerous other links on that page to correct samples) even if it holds up your FAC. Since you staunchly defend your sources (below), I don't understand the reluctance to identify them with a correct referencing style. Also, there is no need to escalate the FAC to the kind of dialogue you and DCGeist engage in below - wouldn't it be easier just to complete your references? <click - unwatch> If you do so, and want me to have a second look, pls ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) The article has improved greatly with the addition of some book sources in place of websources, but since you haven't identified most website publishers, I've re-examined them. I appreciate the work you did to replace the AOL members webpage with book references, but I find that most of the other websources you don't provide a publisher for are self-published websites that don't appear to rise to the level of reliable sources. The article is still heavily based on self-published, non-reliable sources. If you would have identified the website publishers earlier (by correctly referencing the websources and identifying publishers), this problem would have been more apparent sooner. Excluding the Ingram personal website, which you've explained:

• a b Dean, L. DuMont TV - KTTV TV11. Larry Dean's R-VCR Television Production website. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Radio Ranch Media Production website appears to be a personal website/hobby that doesn't meet RS.
• a b c d e f g Spadoni, M. (June 2003). DuMont: America's First "Fourth Network". Television Heaven. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Television heaven is a site where anyone can sumbit an article, doesn't appear subject to fact checking, and doesn't give indications of meeting WP:RS.
• ^ Merlin, J. Roaring Rockets: The Space Hero Files. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. slick-net, AKA Drew's World of Choppers, doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
• ^ a b c d Jajkowski , S. (2001). Chicago Television: And Then There Was... DuMont. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Chicagotelevision.com appears to be a self-published, personal website, hobby.
• ^ Jajkowski, S. (2005). Chicago Television: My Afternoon With Red. Retrieved on January 6, 2007. Another Chicagotelevision.com
• ^ Ransom, Mike (1998). Tulsa TV History Thesis - KCEB. Retrieved on December 28, 2006. Tulsatvmemories appears to be a blog.

Response: They have a blog; they are not a blog. Their blog is at a completely different site: http://guestbooks.pathfinder.gr/read/tulsatv . Sandy, you must by now be able to tell the difference between a web-site and a blog.Firsfron of Ronchester 20:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I must switch to a Strong object as it appears that your reluctance to reveal the publishers on your sources highlights a larger problem with reliability of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Titles in the title bar sometimes differ from the text at the top of the page. For example, Ref [5] only has the word "Television Heaven" in the title bar, but that is the name of the web-site. The title at the top of the page itself, however, says "DuMont: America's First Fourth Television Network". I have taken this to be the actual title of the page, as otherwise, all the pages on the site will have the same name.

I have included wikilinks on difficult terminology as I feel this article isn't really the place to go into explanations on what "O&Os" are, or what coaxial cable is; I do understand your reason for requesting this. At the same time, explanations tend to clutter the page and cause sentence fragments, which detracts from the prose. I honestly would prefer to wikilink most terms. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy of Dwaipayan, per WP:MOS, "The standard writing style is to spell out the acronym or abbreviation on the first reference (wikilinked if appropriate) and then show the acronym or abbreviation after it, in parentheses", so I will object to not spelling out what the O&O abbreviation refers to on the first occurrence, per WP:MOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I cannot agree with the statement that so many "badly sourced, error-filled articles on radio and television currently reside on Wikipedia; your work here really stands out and, I hope, will serve as an example to others contributing in the field" is a good rationalization for promoting to FA an article that does not appear to use reliable sources, and do not believe that would be a good example for other articles in the radio and television. Since you have several reliable sources, I feel confident you can rework the article to reflect information from those sources, rather than personal, or self-published hobby websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Just about there. Sandy and I are looking at this through different goggles: I don't see a lot of uncited text at all. The tendency of some editors to cite every single declaration of fact or analysis is counterproductive--such articles are difficult to read and thus fail to serve Wikipedia's primary purpose: informing its readers. Citations are required for (a) direct quotes [and, though the Wikipedia guidelines doesn't explicitly state so, specific, substantive paraphrasings from unique sources] and (b) matter that is challenged or likely to be challenged. They are also desirable for (c) information that would be difficult for an interested reader to verify, even after looking over the sources you already provide, and (d) matter that you have discovered is reported incorrectly elsewhere in a major source or in multiple minor ones. It seems to me you've met that standard--with the exception of the one place I tagged while doing a light copyedit. Please don't go into citation overkill...you've provided very good sourcing now and any reader truly interested in the topic should have no trouble verifying the information that appears--if...

...And here I do agree with Sandy...you help out by providing page numbers for the citations you do give. It's not a standard requirement on Wikipedia yet, but it really should be. The contributor found the cited information on a specific page--there's no good reason not to tell the reader what page that is, as is done in any well-referenced published text. Sandy is right again, of course, about rationalizing the References list.

Response: Thanks for your comments, of course. I've provided page numbers for the books I used to verify the information. It doesn't seem to be a requirement, as many respected FAs don't have it, but I see the common sense in having the page numbers there. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

One question and one cavil:

(1) What is the basis for the division between DuMont's "better-remembered programs" and the three also-rans listed below? In some cases it's obvious, but how, for instance, was it determined that With This Ring is among the better-remembered shows while Captain Video (described as "hugely popular") is not?

Response: there is no real division between the two. These were all among the more popular series, unlike, eg, Serving Through Science, which was aired before almost anyone had a television. The line was, I believe, simply meant to break up the list into more readable prose, and I retained it during copyedit, as the FAC reviwers don't like lists. If you all would prefer, I'll remove the line in the middle. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

(2) I strongly believe there is entirely too much Wikilinking on Wikipedia. Wikilinks are meant to help the reader, to guide them to elaborations on material of particular relevance to the article, to explain perhaps obscure terminology, and so forth. What reader coming to this article would need to have it clarified what New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or World War II are? Linking such terms distracts the reader from the links that are really important to the article and the areas of interest specifically associated with it. (I find all the individual year links unhelpfully distracting as well, but I know some people are devout believers in these piping to these "19XY in Z" pages. Oy.) I am a very firm advocate of this: Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context. Ultimately, this is your call, and certainly not important enough to bear on the question of supporting the piece for Featured Article status.

You're of course correct that I should not have linked to United States; I've seen this before on FAC. There's probably no one who doesn't know what the U.S. is, so no real need for a wikilink there. I also removed the wikilinks on WWII, New York, and Los Angeles. I retained the link on Chicago; as Wikipedia's readership is supposed to be global, there may be those not familiar with a city that is slightly smaller. I also retained the "19xx in Z" links, as the automated peer review suggested I keep those if they specifically refer to the article in question. Last I checked, they did. Hope this is alright! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it one more pass and I know I'll find it an easy support. Best, Dan—DCGeist 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Full support So many badly sourced, error-filled articles on radio and television currently reside on Wikipedia; your work here really stands out and, I hope, will serve as an example to others contributing in the field. Terrific job.—DCGeist 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object—1a. The prose needs fixing throughout. Take the opening:

"The network was hindered by the prohibitive cost of broadcasting, FCC regulations which restricted the company's growth, and by the company's own partner, Paramount Pictures. Despite several innovations in broadcasting and creating one of television's biggest stars of the 1950s,"

• • The first sentence, a three-item list, has "by", nothing, then "by" again. The second sentence has different grammar for two items (try "the creation of"). Can "own" be removed? Further on, it wasn't the programming, but the recordings of the programs, that was destroyed, surely?
  • Further on, what exactly is "well-remembered"? "Well regarded"? "appear in TV retrospectives or are mentioned in passing"—mentioned in passing where?

Tony 15:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, particularly for the specific suggestions on ways to improve the text.

• I added "by" and removed "own", though I do not understand the rationale for removing "own" (though of course I do not object). "The creation of" was substituted where you suggested.
• As for "programming", Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines "programming" as "a. the selection and scheduling of programs for a particular period, station, or network. or b. the programs scheduled." It seems to be a valid usage of the word.
• The full sentence reads "The network is not well-remembered today, prompting several TV historians to refer to DuMont as the "Forgotten Network"." It seems to me the meaning of that sentence is fairly clear already, but I have changed it to "largely unremembered"; if this is too clunky, I can revise it.
• "Mentioned in passing" has been clarified; I was trying to use summary style, to poor effect. Let me know if "mentioned briefly in books about U.S. television history" is too clunky. I'm open to futher suggestions.
• This opening was written by me in response to the comment during peer review that the lead needed to be expanded. I did not write the majority of the rest of the text, and only revised it during the Peer Review process when user:Ruhrfisch gave many automated suggestions and also suggested your editing exercises. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support I was a big advocate of the article's GA candidacy, and I think Firsfron has done and is doing great work on this article. When I saw the first two objections, I was worried about its FA chances, but now that the above problems have been addressed, I feel that the page passes all requirements of WP:WIAFA. It is well-written and well-sourced, it's comprehensive, and in short, it's got everything I like to see in an FA. -- Kicking222 22:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Question? now that the above problems have been addressed Huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'm almost ready to give my support to this candidacy.Support. Firsfron has done a fantastic job in making this article FA-worthy, and has also made several modifications during this review that have strengthened an already-competent article. There are, however, a few concerns that I have, and being a member of the Television Stations Project, as is Firsfron, I wanted to be able to provide alternative suggestions, hence the delay with my input:
  • In the opening section, first paragraph, the article originally stated that "The network was hindered...and by the company's own partner, Paramount Pictures." The use of the word "own" was disputed, but I thought that the wording conveyed a sense of surprise that the company's partner was one of its hinderances. When the word was removed, so was the sense of surprise. I suggest adding the word "even" to restore that sense of surprise: "The network was hindered...and even by the company's partner, Paramount Pictures."

Response: I've added the word, and hopefully that will be acceptable to these other reviewers. I agree that it should be somehow emphasised that DuMont's partner, Paramount, hindered the company.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Opening section, second paragraph - the use of "latter-day obscurity" seems awkward, but I haven't been able to think of a suitable alternative. Also "...has prompted several TV historians to refer to it as the 'Forgotten Network'" is a broad statement that seems to need a reference. Other than David Weinstein, has anyone else referred to it as such?

Comment: Yes. Weinstein's book is The Forgotten Network; in Television's Greatest Year: 1954 R.D. Heldenfels says "DuMont is the Jesse Garon Presley of networks, a sibling that died young and was lost in the mists of memory... for most viewers DuMont is as forgotten as Faraway Hill and Rhythm Rodeo and Chicagoland Mystery Players".[20] However, I can't add that as a cite, as the Dumont Historical Web Site has been judged as not an acceptable reference. I've added Weinstein's book as a reference. "Forgotten network"+"DuMont"-"Wikipedia" gets 2,780 hits (though mostly duplicates). There are, of course, many references which are titled things like "Remembering DuMont", "Remember When", and the like, but I would argue that if you have to go out of your way to "remember" something on a web-site or in a book, it's mostly forgotten. Also, I went to the library and checked out a reference book called On Television, which purported to cover U.S. television from invention to circa 1970 (when the book was published). DuMont was only mentioned in one single short sentence. Seems forgotten to me, but I'll rephrase if I must. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If I come up with something better for "latter-day obscurity", I'll suggest it. Otherwise it's not a show-stopper for me. As for the "Forgotten Network" reference, just trying to be a pain in the butt before anyone else does. "Forgotten Network" is certainly the correct phrase; I was just wondering if anyone else had used it, as you cite "several TV historians". Whether by blog, website, or formal source, IMO, if someone accepted to be a historian, says that it's a "forgotten network", that's sufficient backing for your statement. I guess sometimes, the WP:RS guideline isn't perfect. Perhaps if you change the word "several" to "at least one notable", making the sentence "...has prompted at least one notable TV historian to refer to it...", with the reference to Weinstein's book... Again, not a show-stopper for me. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Changed it to "at least one notable" as you suggested. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 10:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Origins section, third paragraph - the references to "coaxial cable hookups" is unclear. The first reference implies hardware or networking, so when the second reference states that "One of these hookups was the announcement of the U.S.'s dropping of an atomic bomb...", because the announcement is not a hookup, the wording doesn't fit. Was the hookup permanent or transitory? From the first reference, I would conclude that it was the latter. Also, "announcement of the U.S.'s dropping" is awkward. I believe this alternate wording would fit better, assuming that the cable hookups were transitory: "One of those hookups carried the announcement that the U.S. had dropped an atomic bomb...".

Response:I have changed the wording as you requested.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • In the same paragraph, I would remove the parentheses from "and DuMont's best friend", plus I would change "the official beginning of DuMont" to "the official beginning of the DuMont Network", as DuMont Labs was already in existence.

Response: adjusted as requested, I believe. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I will make one minor edit to the article, removing the comma prior to "and DuMont's best friend" to improve readability. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Programming section, third paragraph - I corrected a spelling error (separate instead of seperate) in the second sentence, but in the same sentence, the use of the word "shot" twice seems redundant. As "kinescopes" is wikilinked, is there a need to explain that it is a film shot from a live television screen? If so, then perhaps "originating from the East Coast" is better than "shot on the East Coast".

Response: "Shot" was indeed redundant; replaced as suggested. These suggestions are very, very helpful, BTW. Going the article over and over, even with many people, you soon lose track of what's redundant or not so clear... Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Just putting myself in your shoes. It's easier for you to make corrections if I'm telling you what I have in mind. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Programming section, fourth paragraph - I believe that "the lavish DuMont TeleCenter opened" works better than "the lavish DuMont TeleCenter was opened".

Response: Changed, thanks.Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Programming section, second to last paragraph - Edie Adams' testimony in the Television Heaven reference doesn't mention any timeframe for the destruction of the DuMont kinescopes, nor is there any reference to any warehouse. Does another reference provide that information? Also, there is still a reference to ABC in the article that should be removed.

Response: Well, here's the thing. The site says Adams stated someone "had three huge semis back up to the loading dock…filled them all with stored kinescopes…drove them to a waiting barge…made a right at the Statue of Liberty and dumped them in the upper New York Bay" What sort of a building has a loading dock and is large enough to store three semi truck loads of films? Still, the only reference I could find which actually mentions the warehouse is the DuMont Historical Web Site, which has been objected to, and although several on-line sites mention people seeing the kines until the early 1970s, these are comments submitted by retired TV/radio broadcasters and the like, on web forums, so I have reworked this sentence, removing all reference (I hope!) to ABC, a warehouse, and the 1970s, per your comment. Thanks Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, not a show-stopper. dhett 09:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Halted at the start section, last paragraph - is there a reference for Goldin's statement? dhett 03:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Added reference. Although I cannot give a page number for the reference (as I don't have the book, and it's been out of print for years), you can see it's listed here Firsfron of Ronchester 08:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Got a late break here - in the second paragraph of Halted at the start, in the first sentence, "Boston (or Philadelphia...) and Cincinnati" changed to "Boston (or Cincinnati...) and Cincinnati". Does Philadelphia need to be restored, or should the parenthetical comment now be removed? dhett 18:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, good catch. The source mentioned applications in Boston, Cleveland or Cincinnati, not Boston, Philadelphia, or Cincinnati. When I changed it, I removed the wrong city. It's fixed now. Sorry. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support. User:SandyGeorgia has made many objections to this article's FAC, several of which relate to WP:RS. I admit when I decided to work on this article to prepare it for FAC, I wasn't certain I could find reliable sources for a company which has been defunct for 50 years. As mentioned in the article, the network has largely been forgotten. Sandy has specifically objected to Clarke Ingram's site. Ingram has been in the TV/radio broadcasting business for over 20 years (link provided above). Sandy has objected to Larry Dean's site as a reliable source. Mr. Dean has been in the radio and TV broadcasting business for 26 years[21]. WP:RS states "Expertise of the originator about the subject—An academic expert in one subject is more reliable when writing about that subject than when writing about another. For example, a biologist is more reliable when writing about biology than when writing about nuclear physics." I wonder how many more years it will take before these fellows are considered "reliable".

Sandy has objected to the Tulsa TV memories site, calling it a "blog". The Tulsa TV Memories site is not a blog. This page is researched and referenced/footnoted. The fact that a well-respected FAC reviewer like Sandy, who has been reviewing FACs for a very long time, cannot seemingly tell the difference between a blog and a web page with in-line citation scares the fuck out of me. It scares me because I would like to submit other articles for FAC, but in a hostile environment when any well-referenced and footnoted web page can be claimed to be "a blog", it makes me very leery to submit further articles. This sort of thing (FAC reviewers rejecting sources on a mistaken basis) is counter-productive to the FAC process.

Unless I misunderstood Sandy's comment above (and this is quite possible), s/he has claimed that the example citation for a web-site used at Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Web_sites_and_articles_.28not_from_periodicals.29 is incorrect. It's been there, unmodified, for over a year, so you'd think this would have come up before. The page is frequently updated, but the example has remained unchanged. WP:CITE claims Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style lists "several examples of APA and Harvard referencing techniques".

Without further clarification of what Sandy means by saying the WP:CITE examples are "incorrect", why sources written by veteran professionals in the field are not reliable, and why works with sources and footnotes are "blogs", I can only support this article's candidacy and scratch my head in puzzlement. I realize that an article which is objected to by both Tony and Sandy (as this article is) stands a snowball's chance in heck of actually reaching FA status, but I cannot "fix" what doesn't appear broken. So there you go. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Absolutely correct. Sandy's original urging of a more rigorous verification process was wise and entirely justifiable, but unfortunately Sandy now appears to be Wikilawyering. Specifically, what I perceive as a counterproductive insistence on a rigid vision of WP:RS leads me to conclude that Sandy is "Breaking the spirit of a policy or guideline through sticking to a too-literal interpretation of the letter of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines," and is also in effect "Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express." I want to be clear that I do not say this as a personal attack--Sandy has been a very valuable contributor to the project; for whatever reason, the thread's been lost here.

Care has now clearly been taken to base the article on good, strong sources, both online and published. The online sourcing is plainly not based on random, first-Google-hit sites, but on information sources where similar care has evidently been taken to provide correct information. Is there a guarantee that all information on those sites is perfectly correct? Of course not. Of course, as I'm sure Sandy knows, many sources that pass the rigid WP:RS test are themselves replete with incorrect information.

Much more important and helpful than applying some sweeping and abstract WP:RS policy is to directly and critically examine the quality of each source: if the information it contains about independently verifiable material is uniformly correct, there are satisfactory odds that the unique information it contains is correct; if labor and care has been taken with its literary composition, proofreading, and presentation, there is a good basis for belief that labor and care has been taken with its factual reportage. The spirit of WP:RS is that contributors work hard to base the content of articles on the best referencable sources available. The relevant principle it expresses is to find expert and knowledgable people in the pertinent field who have written about the specific facts being addressed.

Incredibly, Sandy objects to two fine articles written by Steve Jajkowski, archivist at Chicago's Museum of Broadcast Communications, because of a judgment that is essentially about the financial status of the website on which Jajkowski chose to post the pieces. That seems to me Wikilawyering of the clearest sort. If one is interested in the spirt of WP:RS in this case one would see what information one could find on Jajkowski (I easily found professional references to him and to his professional work in the field), actually read the articles, peruse a sample of the rest of the site's content, and come to a conclusion based on examination and inductive reasoning. To suggest that Jajkowski runs an unreliable "hobby" site is pettifoggery.

Similarly, slick-net.com is no thoughtful researcher's notion of an ideal source in the abstract, but let's see how it's actually used in this case. Any intelligent examination of the material actually cited suggests in every way--evident labor, impressive breadth and depth of detail, clear design, good composition, good proofreading--that this is a reliable source for the subject matter in question. Still, maybe the specifc information that's being cited could refer to an authoritative published text and the website reference could be added to the note as a supplement. So...what is the statement in the text of the article that the citation refers to? That Captain Video and His Video Rangers was "a hugely popular kids' science fiction series"! As a fact easily verifiable in any of dozens of standard works covering the field, that doesn't even require a citation at all. Yes, the article could reference any TV encyclopedia for this simple fact if someone ever thought to challenge it, but the article does something much more useful in the absence of such a silly challenge--it sends the reader to a carefully constructed website with a wealth of information about the show. That's great. What a boon to the Wikipedia reader. (By the way, if one cares to check if the reference webpage has any errors, it certainly doesn't appear to. Every bit of information in my 20th edition of The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows that appears on the webpage appears accurately. The name of the show's lead writer appears differently (Brock vs. Brockhauser)--independent sources indicate that he was variously credited and the website uses the same version of the name as that used by the producer and director of the show, who was interviewed by the site. That's right--this source that Sandy says "doesn't appear to be a reliable," actually interviewed one of the primary participants in Captain Video. Oh...actually the site interviewed a total of three participants in the show, as well as the children of the show's deceased creators see "Space Interviews". Here's a challenge: find a source meeting Sandy's technical interpretation of WP:RS that evidences even half so much effort at being a reliable and detailed source of information on Captain Video.)

Yes, the conceptual guidelines of WP:RS are crucial in helping the many inexperienced researchers who wish to contribute to Wikipedia, but when they are applied narrowly in specific cases to deprecate worthwhile sources of information, their purpose is lost. In conclusion, I believe in the spirit of what Sandy is after--providing good, strong, referencable sourcing--and I believe this article embodies that spirit very well. Anyone who cares more about specific evidence and learning than about general policy and lawyering should appreciate the value of what this article brings to the Wikipedia project and to the readers it serves to inform.—DCGeist 04:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Cyrus the Great

Nomination temporarily suspended. I'm a bit short of time for the next week or so. As such, I won't have enough time to contribute substantially to the article. In the mean time, I am suspending this nomination until I return to correct the article per the concerns below. ♠ SG →Talk 06:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Self-nomination. This article was nominated back in August; it gained some support, but eventually failed. Over the past few months, Cyrus the Great has been improved vastly. Jona Lendering in particular has been instrumental in fixing up the article. Overall, I believe the concerns raised in the last FAC have been corrected, and the article should finally be ready for FA status. ♠ SG →Talk 03:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per the previous nomination.--Yannismarou 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• I supported it during it's last nom and I'll support it again. Kyriakos 11:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object for now, but there's good material, so I could support with some improvements. The first sentence of the lead is very confusing and hard to read as a sentence. I know people want the translations and the dates right up front, but perhaps there's a clearer and simpler way to do that? The semicolon separating the translations and the dates is such a minor mark compared to the other scripts and diacritics it's hard to tell what's going on. The footnotes are part of what makes it so hard to read. Cite those facts later in the article instead, and just let the lead be a summary of the article. 2) Per WP:LEAD the lead is too short. It should properly summarize all of the most important points of the article. 3) Eliminate the one and two sentence paragraphs, they make for poor flow of the prose. Either expand them, merge with related material, or remove them if they aren't important enough to expand on. 4) I was hoping to see just such a map and that's good, but since you're superimposing ancient and modern, you've got to be careful. For example, the words India fall in modern day Pakistan and that's potentially confusing. At least move the word to straddle the border so it's clearer that ancient India is what is being referred to. Or just move it all the way into what is modern India. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I've cleaned up the lead by moving the references and expanding it a bit. Other than that, what one or two-sentence paragraphs are you referring to? ♠ SG →Talk 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The lead is better, the map is still needed, but I know that might take a bit more time. The short paragraphs I'm referring to are: the second paragraph of the etymology section beginning "In modern", the first paragraph of the early life section beginning "Cyrus was born", the last paragraph of the Media section beginning "Cyrus' conquest", the last three paragraphs of the Babylonia section, and the last paragraph of the Cyrus Cylinder section. That statement could also use a stronger citation so you can remove the "reportedly" qualifier. It either is or it isn't, or at least some source reported it is. Incidentally, what does the last paragraph of the Media section ending "join forces against Cyrus and Empire" mean? - Taxman ^Talk 03:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are large portions that are not sourced. For example, in the section entitled ‘Politics and philosophy’ there are four paragraphs and only one citation. Sentences such as ‘Even today, Cyrus is regarded by many as one of the top 5 leaders in world history. . .’ must be clearly sourced.

As Taxman states there are too many single sentence paragraphs.

The section entitled ‘Background’ is really an etymology and not a background at all. This section could be merged with the subsequent section entitled ‘Dynastic history’ eg: After that sections’ first sentence. Raymond Palmer 15:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I can't really merge that opening into "dynastic history" as they have little to do with each other. Though, I did split it off into a section called "Etymology". I also got rid of some POV additions and sourced more in the "Politics and philosophy" and "Cyrus Cylinder" sections. What do you think? ♠ SG →Talk 19:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I have read it again carefully and, as in August, I Oppose.

1. "Cambyses is considered by Herodotus and Ctesias to be of humble origin, but they further note his marriage to Princess Mandane of Media, who was the daughter of Princess Aryenis of Lydia and Astyages, king of the Medes." First of all, Cambyses is not considered by Herodotus to be of humble origin: "but he (Astyages) gave her (Mandane) to a Persian named Cambyses, whom he found to be of a good descent and of a quiet disposition, counting him to be in station much below a Mede of middle rank." (Herodotu 1.107, Maculay's translation); "According to Herodotus (...) Cambyses (I) was not a king but a Persian of good family" (M Dandamaev, "Cambyses I" in Encyclopaedia Iranica). Secondly, Ctesias not even mention Mandane. Ctesias' account about Cyrus' origin have to be explainded somewhere. It is also important to at leats mention Xenophon' (Cyropaedia) version.
2. "Cyrus was born in either 576 BC or 590 BC." It is important to explain why some scholars give 576 and others give 590. In fact, I read more frecuently 600 instead of 590. The 600 BC date is due to the possible identification between Cyrus the Great's grandfather (Cyrus I) with Kurash of Parsumas mentioned in 653 BC by the Assyrians (if Cyrus I was a king in 653, his grandson must have been born around 600). This is defended by Dandamaev ("Cyrus the Great", in Encyclopedia Iranica), but Lendering says that "it is possible -but unlikely from a chronological point of view" [22], so he prefers 575. Although I desagree with Dandamaev, I find also unlikely 575 (Cyrus the Great begun his reign in 559, and then he must have been 16 years old!), so I'll look for more references. We could ask Lendering too, as he is working here.
3. The section "Rise and military campaigs: Media" is not complete. I would like to see what the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Sippar Cylinder say about it, as I stated before.
4. "The exact dates of the Lydian conquest are unknown, but it is generally suggested to have begun in 547 BC." Again: Why some give 547? Because they identifie the "Ly[...]" of the Nabonidus Chronicle with Lydia. Why others desagree? Because they don't. It is also related with the following: "According to Herodotus, Cyrus spared Croesus' ife and kept him as an advisor, but this account conflicts with some translations of the contemporary Nabonidus Chronicle, which interpret that the king of Lydia was slain." Some believe the Nabonidus Chronicle king is not the one of Lydia.
5. What are you trying to mean with "* Unconfirmed rulers, due to the Behistun Inscription.", bellow the genealogical tree?
6. I think you are missing a very important matter about Cyrus: his religiuos policies, documented in the Cyrus Cylinder. I see you have a Cyrus Cylinder section in "Legacy", but it also must be discussed apart from it, not only as a legacy. It also should be discussed his alleged Zoroastrianism.
7. Which were the capital cities of Cyrus the Great? We are not told, although Pasargadae is mentioned three times. The capital cities must be discussed.
8. When, a long time ago, I uploaded a section called "Sources" (now colled "Ancient sources") it was intented to be a sumary of some ancient sources I knew, but not necessarily used as references. It must be placed apart, and should be expanded. Some of the main sources, as Herodotus or the Nabonidus Chronicle, should be discussed too.
9. Don't you think the references are quite out of date? The only modern ones are the Encyclopaedia Iranica (but note that the article on Cyrus is not used, although is freely available on its website [23], Livius.org, Rollinger and Tolini -the last two being used just one time each other. There are many books and journal articles on Cyrus the Great. I've made a list of those that are available to me, I'm just about to pastle it in Cytus the Great talk page. You can use the bibliograhy of E Iranica's article as a reference too.
10. A minor point: I don't like the Homa griffin picture, because it doesn't belong to Cyrus' times. You should replace it with a one from Livius.org (for instance, from Pasargadae), since it now appears that they can be uploaded in Commons under GFDL licence [24]. Amizzoni 21:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Early Classical Period? As far as i know, the term Classical is not usually used in Ancient Near East Historiography, it refers only to European Ancient History.Amizzoni 22:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Another point: All Persian king used the title "Great King" (Olp Persian Vazraka) [25] [26] but only three of them are known in modern times as "the Great": Cyrus II, Darius I and occasionnally Xerxes I. Vazraka has nothing to do with the sufix "the Great".--Amizzoni 23:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• The map is wrong. Sardis must be placed a little to the NE, it wasn't a costal city. Ionia must be moved to the NW, as well as Media and Babylon, and Persia must be moved to the W.--Amizzoni 21:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Given that almost all primary and ancient sources regarding Cyrus are of Hellenic origin, I think Cyrus' name in Greek should be added next to Old Persian and before Farsi. Also any and all information derived from Xenophon's Cyropaedia oughta be treated as fiction.--Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Something Wicked This Way Comes (novel)

This is a self-nomination. I added the plot summary, characters, analysis, criticism, adaptations, and popular culture sections, also referencing as much critical sources I could find. I also tried to make the prose as smooth and natural as possible. I did a peer review on it which is now archived, and since then have gone over the article again and again, and am now fairly sure that there is nothing much left to be added. Since this is my first featured article review, I would appreciate any comments, support, or objections made. Breed Zona 20:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak Object: Very nice so far. I have a couple problems though that need to be solved before I can support: Writing has several redundancies and small problems in it. Run through the entire article to find these. Some examples:

*It is about two thirteen-year-old boys, Jim Nightshade and William Halloway, who have a harrowing experience with a nightmarish carnival that comes to their Midwestern town one October, and is presided over by the mysterious "Mr. Dark" who bears a tattoo for each person bound in service to the carnival—many unwillingly. Sentence is too long, and the "many unwillingly" at the end is ungainly.

*Mr. Dark's malevolent presence is balanced by that of Will's father, Charles Halloway, who finds his own life force tempered by middle-age melancholy. What does "balanced" mean, and I'm not sure what the last clause is saying.

*Something Wicked This Way Comes can be considered a true full-length novel with a consistent plot throughout. Remove "true" and "throughout".

*These two novels, coupled with Bradbury's official 2006 sequel to Dandelion Wine, Farewell Summer, make up a Green Town trilogy. "the Green Town Trilogy", not "a Green Town Trilogy".

*When the sun has risen, Will and Jim head on down to the carnival. Remove "on down".

I would also try to keep out any unnecessary detail, like "although they are disquieted by the way the people set the tents up silently, in an almost ghost-like manner." Just try to establish that the carnival is unusual and mysterious; don't copy the novel. "Notes" should be renamed "References". The latter section can just be removed entirely; it's obvious that the novel would be your reference. Online references need accessdates, and should be in the cite news template, if there is an author listed. Keep up the good work, you're nearly there.--Dark Kubrick 20:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dark Kubrick, for commenting. I went over the article again and made some tweaks here and there, but nothing major. I also added today's date (that counts, right, if I don't remember the original access dates?) to the online references after checking each of them again to make sure they haven't vanished into thin air. I'm not sure what you're referring to, though, with the "cite news template." Do you mean that I need to remove the book references from the References and list them in their own section? Could you link me to the template you're referring to? Breed Zona 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the template I'm talking about Template:Cite news. There's also Template:Cite web, but I use that if there isn't an author. For the online refs, all you need is the title, hyperlink, author, publication date (if there is one given), publisher, and access date. Hope that helps.--Dark Kubrick 02:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at Wikipedia:Citation templates it is stated that "the use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines." In short, it's about personal preference. My preference is no citations, just the references done in the correct format. I've revised some references to fit the format shown in the citation templates without actually using the templates themselves -- they take up too much space, IMHO. Breed Zona 03:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, the way you've done it is fine.--Dark Kubrick 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object plot summary is way too long. Quoting from WP:NOT:

Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

Remove the plot summary and the character description and there is not that much left in the article. The writing is pretty good but there are many very short paragraphs in the later sections. A number of novels which currently have FA status should probably be downgraded to GA in any case. Pascal.Tesson 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for commenting, Pascal. I would like some specific criticism before I reedit the article, though. Just how long should a good plot summary be? One page long? I tried not to include everything in the summary, leaving out some side plots. Also, which other sections do I need to expand and by how much? The background section? The theme section? The criticism section? The adaptations section? The popular culture section is short because there's not really much direct references to the novel. Breed Zona 23:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Japan

This article has improved substantially in the past few months and I think it truly deserves FA status. --WoodElf 10:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

July 2006 FAC.

• Support as part-author. --WoodElf 10:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. Have not read the article. But, Notes are grossly mismanaged. Many web sources lack important info like publisher, author, date of retrieval etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Dwaipayanc, also, stand-alone portal links go in the See also section. Sumoeagle179 13:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. There's a minor problem with parenthesis syntax in the lead after I tried to reinstate the pronunciation file that was lost some time ago. It's Template:Nihongo that is causing a bit of trouble, but I'm sure it can be fixed without removing the link to the sound file. / Peter ^Isotalo 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support as per WoodElf and as a contributor. John Smith's 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object per Dwaipayan, also because parts of the article do not accurately reflect sources referenced[27][28]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HongQiGong (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 December 2006.

• Comment. As I have said many times, the reason "continental East Asia" was adopted was because of a discussion and informal vote on the talk page. You and others have refused to conduct another one, prefering to try to hold the article to ransom. Either get a consensus to change it as you wish or stop complaining. Why are you so proud you won't have a discussion on it? John Smith's 18:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment When did I say I won't have a discussion on it? Now, the source cited specifically mentions China and Korea. The statement that uses the source do not reflect this accurately. And "Continental East Asia" includes Mongolia, possibly Vietnam, and any other ancient cultures in continental East Asia at the time. It's vastly inaccurate to use that term when most scholars agree that Yayoi cultural influences came from China and Korea. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have opened a poll on it, so take part - if you agree to respect the result. If you don't then you don't have a leg to stand on. By the way, why haven't you stricken the second part of your objection? The current version is as you want it. John Smith's 19:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object per Hong Qi Gong. Foreign influences and relations have been whitewashed, and citations manipulated by some editors. Wikiment 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikiment registered on December 1, and has 21 edits. Sandy (Talk) 01:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If someone thinks that something was whitewashed, pls raise those issues in the talk pages. The article doesn't look like it was "whitewashed", and content-based improvements/changes can always be made even after FA in any case. Baristarim 09:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per John Smith's Hidvegi.gabor 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This was Hidvegi.gabor's first post to Wikipedia, as a newly-registered user today. Sandy (Talk) 19:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC*
• Support Article contains good information has a good layout. Lord Metroid 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Object. 1c (factually accurate), 1e (stable), 2 (headings). First, the WP:POLL and talk page environment/tone indicate stability concerns are unresolved. Heading Administrative Divisions doesn't conform to WP:MSH. The article is seriously undercited, containing numerous basic facts without citation. The footnotes that are provided are sloppy and poorly formatted - FAs should represent our best work, and this article needs much more polish before its ready for FAC. Suggest peer review, full referencing, and a copy edit. Sandy (Talk) 19:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The page has had a peer review already - you can check it if you access the talk page. Stability issues arise from editors that refuse to recognise a consensus. HongQiGong has stated on the talk page under a poll I opened that he will not respect any result he dislikes. If you object to the FA status because of his reverts, then you are saying he can hold the page ransom until his demands are met. What sort of message does that send out? If you don't want a page to get FA status, all you have to do is revert three times a day. John Smith's 20:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article has enough other serious problems that POV is just one of many - I don't think anyone is holding anything ransom. Get the citations up to snuff, and you may find that POV concerns subside. Sandy (Talk) 20:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• If you would actually look at the comments, you would see people couldn't care less about citations. It's about pushing POV regardless of what a majority of editors might think. Besides I have carried out some work to tidy-up the worst of the citations. I can promise you it won't make the least bit of difference. John Smith's 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Editors reviewing a featured article do care about citations. Please focus on the task at hand - you have problems in addition to POV concerns. Your peer review got input from exactly one (respected) editor - a longer stint at peer review may help - and he also said the article was lacking citations. The article is not ready for FAC.Sandy (Talk) 21:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• No offence, but I just had a look at the edit you made, and I thought it was far from being necessary. It may be a little better, but it's almost negligable in my opinion. And I'll back that up with evidence from another country page that has FA status, People's Republic of China. If you look at the citations there you will see many that do not follow a template format. So I guess that page should be stripped of its FA status in your book, right? John Smith's 21:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You are certainly free then to ignore all three reviewers here who have told you your references are not correctly formatted. The risk is yours. I did but one sample to show the work needed throughout (you didn't provide a publication date on a news source, and didn't use cite news), without even getting into the areas of the article that are undercited and the rest of the sources that are incorrectly formatted. It doesn't appear that you are interested in responding to reviewer's concerns. I suggest that you not compare to China, which will be up at FAR soon. Sandy (Talk) 21:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, the third editor was just jumping on the bandwagon - he adds citations that are no better than the rest. For another the first two were looking at the old version - you cannot say your change was more significant than what I did. I obviously responded to concerns by individually applying a template format that I could find to the sources. So why did you claim I was not interested in responding to the concerns raised? John Smith's 21:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Try taking a look at Canada for example since PRC article does have some problems. Baristarim 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I cleaned up what refs were there from Economy onwards, but didn't get to the top of the article. This should give an idea of how to fix the rest of the refs, but while I was in there I found templates in the wrong place, some prose issues, and large amounts of uncited data. Getting the article cited will be the first priority. Sandy (Talk) 22:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does this need five sources? Can it be narrowed down to one or two?

• The Yayoi period, starting around 300 BC, marked the influx of new practices such as rice farming and iron and bronze-making brought by migrants from China and Korea.[2][3][4][5][6]

This Encyclopedia souce needs to specify the article title in the encyclopedia:

• The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, 1983 edition, © Columbia University Press ISBN 0-380-63396-5

Sandy (Talk) 23:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was telling you about earlier. People are adding sources to try to "prove" something. They can't accept they're wrong, so they're just throwing stuff in to try to support their position. And already Hong has said his agenda will override the views of everyone else's. So what am I supposed to do? Talking hasn't resolved anything and peer review can't. How is someone supposed to resolve a dispute when one party will never back down? John Smith's 23:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've cleaned up most of the refs that were there, but there are numerous uncited statements - I added some cite tags, but am going to stop now, as it's ruining the article. There are other problems - some of the prose is tortured, choppy, and even grammatically incorrect. The See also and Main templates aren't used correctly, as the daughter articles are not stand alone articles, summarized to this article. Some of the daughter articles are barely more than stubs. There is much work to be done here: solving the POV issues among the editors is only a small piece. I suggest focusing on fixing the cold, hard facts first, and hope the rest will eventually work itself out - right now, even the facts aren't well written or well referenced. Sandy (Talk) 00:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Problems with citation + structural problems that make the article hard to read. There shouldn't be subsections, and if there are any they should be kept down to a bare minimum. That's not a rule set on stone, but experience shows that too many subsections confuse the reader. But in any case the problem seems to be with the level of citations + WP:CITE format problems. Maybe peer review? Baristarim 21:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis article has already undergone a peer review. True, this article has fewer references that most country articles, but that does not neccessarily make it a bad article. --WoodElf 07:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a bad article :) It is sure that it is a good article since it came this far. Personally, the biggest thing with me is the structure. So many subsections cut down on the fluidity of the article and it shouldn't be too hard to fix: just combine the sections and make each subsection a different paragraph in the main section, for example in the demographics section. It might be nicer if the largest cities sub was merged to administrative divisions section.

As for the references... The whole article can use more references all around, but there was something else that caught my eye. The CIA Factbook is cited seven times in the article. Even though the Factbook is not bad, it is not known to be a very reliable reference, with some data simply being rough estimates. Even though the criteria for inclusion is veriability and not reliability, I think that the avoidance of its use is preferable for a FA article. What is needed for an FA is there, but there needs to be a minor structural cleanup and a referencing drive I think. The WP:CITE doesn't seem to be a problem anymore. Baristarim 08:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Too many unsourced statements. In fact there is at least one entirely unsourced section --Zleitzen 01:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment some of the text is out of date. For example, in the economy section, it refers to 2006 as being in the future. Hmains 04:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object until ^{[citation needed]} tags are fixed.--Yannismarou 18:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—No, not well enough written. Just two sentences at the top say it all:
  • "The characters that make up Japan's name literally mean "sun-origin," thus Japan is sometimes identified as the "Land of the Rising Sun," derived from the country's eastward position relative to China. Its capital and largest city is Tokyo." Remove "literally". Hate those commas within the quotes, but if the MoS says it's OK, I'll have to put a sock in my mouth. A semicolon, not a comma, is required after "origin", in any case. "Referred to" rather than "identified". "Derived" is uncomfortable—what, the term in quotes is derived? Make it explicit, or reword. Whose capital? Looks like China's. Tony 13:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The English words "Nihon or Nippon, officially Nihon-koku or Nippon-koku" in the lead appear in a weird monospace font. The use of the {{nihongo}} template needs to be fixed to correct this. Andrew Levine 23:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and much better than the articles on Korea and China too! Bookishreader45 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Ford Taurus

Mar 06 FAC, Dec 05 FAC

Well, after a lot of improvement in fixing this article up, I think it is finally ready to be featured. It is well referenced (With more getting added), lenhty, and well written, and seems to meet all the categories. So, please contribute! Karrmann 22:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. This article still has all the same problems it had in its last FAC, and is not in shape. The refs aren't properly formatted, there are broad swatches of uncited text, needs attention to WP:MSH, and there are still weasly phrases. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object. per SandyGeorgia.Rlevse 11:57, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

• • Comment The issues raised in the last FAC have been attended to. The references make perfect sense to me, and the page IS in line with WP:MSH. The above objections are baseless. --Sable232 17:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Object: The references do NOT make perfect sense. Some of them are just a link and nothing else. That is not proper format. Also, there are entire paragraphs that are not cited. However, it is in line with WP:MSH, I'll give you that much. --Danner578 06:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Henry Kissinger

I'm adding article Henry Kissinger to the Featured article candidacy list because:

• It is A-Class biography of living person
• It meats Wikipedia:What is a featured article? requirements
• It has been stable lately
• Henry Kissinger is important and controversial personality; he has influenced U.S. politics and international politics as well; he's a Nobel Peace Prize laureate

Please add your objections or general feedback.--Pethr 03:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comments - Please make your references consistent in style and complete - sometimes you include author after the article name, sometimes you include it first, sometimes you put last name first, sometimes you don't - sometimes your pub dates are in parentheses, sometimes they're not - please pick one style and stick with it:
  • (This needs a publication date) Transcript of the BBC Sunday AM Interview "US Policy on Iraq" (and uses a different style than your other cite news)
  • (This is missing publication date and author - scroll to the bottom) Transcript of the BBC Sunday AM Interview "US Policy on Iraq"
• Some of your websources are missing last access dates.
• External links may need pruning - (if this one is important enough to be mentioned in External links, it should be used to reference something - I doubt it's that important, and should be deleted) Marcus Gee. "Is Henry Kissinger a War Criminal?", Globe and Mail (Toronto, Canada), June 11, 2002. You have Kissinger's NobelPrize bio in External links, but also listed as a footnoate - sources used as references shouldn't be listed in External links.
• (Why does this need four references?) Kissinger confirmed in recorded interviews with Woodward that the advice was the same as he had given in an August 12, 2005 column in the Washington Post: "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."[25][26][27][28]
• Prose problems (and unencylopedic - why is this included?): In 2006, Kissinger appeared on the Colbert Report as a guest during Stephen Colbert's shred-off with the Decemberists. It showed a lighter side of Kissinger than the American public has been used to.
• copyedit needs (see Bangladesh Liberation War and Indo-Pakistani War of 1971)
• A bit more serious cleanup, copy edit, and attention to detail, and I'll have another look. Sandy (Talk) 04:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Object. For the following reasons:

• Minor: The lead does not constitute a comprehensive summary per WP:LEAD.
• Important: The article is under-referenced. Whole sections (not just paragraphs) are uncited. I also saw at least one ^{[citation needed]}. Why aren't these things fixed?
• Important: I believe Kissinger's role in Vietnam, and especially his key negotiations with Le Duc Tho, the events that led to the Nobel Prize Award, are under-developed. I would like to see more details about the difficult Le-Kissinger relations (they concluded a peace agreement, although they disliked each other - How did this happen?), and about the controversies and criticisms on Kissinger's decisions and recommendations to the President (such as the Cambodge bombardment). What about the fierce Republican criticisms during the 1970s (even from Reagen) about Vietnam and even the US-Chinese relations?--Yannismarou 08:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reply - Thank you both for comments. I'm fixing Sandy's objections. It will be a little more challenging than I thought. Nonetheless, I'm willing to work on this one but it will take some time. I will also ask for help at Politics and Government Work Group. (Sandy, thank you very much for various remarks about replace.js, it will save me light years!)--Pethr 15:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yikes, I don't know anything about replace.js, but I've been mixed up with another editor lately, which is really irritating (?). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a throughout, and 2a. Here are examples from the top.
  • "appearing at social occasions with many of America's most celebrated beauties"—Um, does "beauties" refer to women, does it? If so, I think it's sexist. And it's a kind of strange thing to say, apart from that. Celebrities I guess I can cope with, but not beauties.
  • First para: "later" then "latter".
  • "still continues"—redundant clanger at the end of the rather short lead.
  • Stubby paragraphs.
  • See if the occurrence of "Kissinger" can be minimised. His naming is a little inconsistent in places.
  • Is the cartoon copyright OK? WP seems to be tightening up on fair use. Tony 13:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply - "Later and "latter" doesn't mean the same thing. "Stubby paragraphs" isn't real objection, is it? Please try to be more concrete. Thank you for the rest, I addressed the first and third objection. Cartoon copyright seems OK, I added more information to better comply with fair use. I will look into it later since the real source of this image isn't perfectly clear.--Pethr 19:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Object. The ToC is very messy - needs a bit of reorganization, or at least some sub-sections need to be merged or removed. Image sizes are inconsistent throughout the article, makes the layout look horrible. 1971 Indo-Pakistan War and 1973 Yom Kippur War sections are too short, consider merging? Africa section too short, as well. Several paragraphs throughout the article are unreferenced. Otherwise looks good. — Wackymacs 14:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] GoldenEye

This article has been worked at on and off for a while now, and had two peer reviews here and here. The issues raised in them have been addressed and no new ones seem forthcoming. I think it meets the criteria for a featured article. Self-nom. Trebor 23:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Quite impressive. It's extensively cited and well-written, except for a few problems here and there. I suggest merging the "Vehicles and gadgets" section with the "Firearms" section, and, while it doesn't bother me, others may object to them for making the article too listy or detailed. Some of the images need detailed fair use rationales as well. The soundtrack image should probably be removed, as it's similar to the movie poster and you need to keep the number of fair use images to a minimum. I'll comment more later.--Dark Kubrick 03:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've addressed the points you raised. The inclusion gadgets/guns/car section is up for debate, but I think it's worth it for a Bond film (that is to say, Bond films rarely have any deeper meaning or hidden imagery - it's all about the action). Trebor 08:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my suggestions (but remember to allow me to strike out the objections :) ). Also, could the Production and Development sections be merged? And why does the infobox not list the stars of the film, except Pierce Brosnan?--Dark Kubrick 20:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops sorry, my first FA. What title do you think the sections should be merged under? It doesn't list the other stars of the film because it is a specific Bond infobox (see here) with no fields for it. I could modify the template if you think the other cast should be listed (which, on reflection, they probably should). Trebor 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

They could be merged under "Production and development" I guess. It just seems like those two sections belong together. And the infobox should probably be modified.--Dark Kubrick 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've addressed both points. Trebor 22:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support. Personally I think the statements in the lead should be referenced with footnotes. I'm unsure about the lists in the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' and 'Censorship' sections. They would be better as prose. Otherwise looks very good. — Wackymacs 13:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at the lead - I don't think anything is claimed that isn't referenced later on though, and it can be hard to find exact sources for the "summary" that the lead is. I'll take the list out the censorship section, but I think vehicles, gadgets and guns would be clumsier as prose. Trebor 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm also unsure about the bold text in the Cast section and the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' section. Does this comply with the Manual of Style? — Wackymacs 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The bold text in the Cast section is a standard for film articles from the Wikiproject. I expect there's no standard for the "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" - it's personal preference, and I just left it how I found it. If you think it's too bright, I can change it. Trebor 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you should change it in the 'Vehicles, gadgets and guns' section. — Wackymacs 20:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, done. Trebor 20:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'd like to see a bit longer of a lede. The plot section has no references at all. Several other parts of the article are missing sources, notably the entire "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" section. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I'll increase the length of the lead. Plot sections for films don't need references (no other film FAs have them), and some of that applies to the "Vehicles, gadgets and guns" section although there may be a few sources I can find for them. Trebor 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the plot sections not having references. That is a vital part of the article. The same goes with vehicles, gadgets, and guns. If there are no references, how is it not original research? Hurricanehink (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen where, but I assume that it was decided at some point that to require independent references for the plot details of a film is taking it too far (again, I'll add that no other film FAs have them). The film is there, it can be watched, it's a primary reference - there will be no independent sources that specifically describe the plot because there'd be no point in those sources existing (if that makes sense). The same goes for any description of an in-universe object. The manual of style for fiction merely warns that the article should be written primarily from an out-of-universe perspective. What alternative is there - you either have to use the film as a primary reference or remove the plot details.

If that is the case, I'll Abstain. I understand using the film as a primary reference, but I'm uncomfortable without having a reference. Songs, for example, typically have sources to describe what occurs in the song. I'm especially uncomfortable about the in-universe objects. It sounds like original research. "Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories." Hurricanehink (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fair enough. I think it's a problem inherent in writing about fiction, though; there just won't be a secondary source for it. Trebor 20:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, another quick thought. Would something like [29] reassure you as a source? Trebor 20:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks good for the gadgets. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Great, I've done the gadgets and cars and am digging for gun refs. Trebor 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on the point of the plot synopsis not having references, Raul654, the Featured Article Director, said here that "the purpose of adding a reference is to allow someone to know the source of a particular bit of information. It should be implicitely obvious that when you are describing the plot of a work, the source of the information is the work itself. Thus, no reference is necessary."--Dark Kubrick 22:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I guess it's fine that the plot doesn't have a reference. After taking another quick look of the article, here's some things that need to be addressed.

  • Phrases in parenthesis should be avoided.

Is this in the MoS somewhere or just personal preference? I find them quite useful to avoid overusing commas. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Some citations needed.

I've put cites in relevant places and removed one bit of information (not added by me) as I couldn't find one.

• • Phrases in quotation marks that aren't quotes should be avoided, like "a bit of a back seat"

That was a quote from the interview, attempted to be put in the text. If you think it sounds odd, I can rephrase it.

• • Sources are needed for the rest of the cast in the cast section

I don't think there's anything left which isn't primarily sourced from the movie, i.e. in-world details.

• • Music and the entire other media section are fairly small. Perhaps the sections should be combined, with no subsections.

I've unsplit the other media section, but I think music should remain separate as it also mentions reviews of the actual film music - not just the soundtrack CD release (if that makes sense) - so doesn't fit under "other media". Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hurricanehink (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've lengthened the lead a little - I'm not sure it's worth adding a third paragraph for it. Trebor 20:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The lead is already long enough, looks very good. — Wackymacs 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Good article, but I have reservations. Specifically, plot section needs copyediting and better prose, and I also feel all the trivia in the cast section should be removed - they make the section feel like an entertainment magazine article. Generally, the whole article should be scrubbed for any excess trivia/problematic wording e.g. "Daniel Kleinman took over from Maurice Binder (who had died in 1991) in designing the opening credits which showcases the Cold War ending and Soviet Union collapsing. He says they are meant to be "a kind of story telling sequence" showing that "what was happening in Communist countries was Communism was falling down".[17]". The second sentence does not add any new information - its a trivial (and awkwardly worded) quote. Also "showcases" is an odd word to use here (and does the opening sequence actually refer to the end of the Cold War - or just the collapse of Communism?; plus "says" is the wrong tense and the reference links is broken. Bwithh 04:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I've removed what is trivia from the cast section - I've left in details about other Bond work or similar roles they've played, as I've seen in other film FAs. I also hope that I've improved the section you comment on - I've tried to explain what is shown in the sequence, followed by the Kleinman quote to explain the message he was trying to put across. I've done my best on the prose in the plot section but am no longer sure if what I change makes it better or worse; it could do with some new eyes to work on it, which I'll try to get. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I've performed a copyedit on the plot synopsis, hope I helped. I also slightly edited the lead to briefly explain who James Bond is.--Dark Kubrick 23:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose there is good here, but there are problems with sources and referencing.
  • (What makes this source reliable? And why aren't they capitalized?)

^ bmw z3. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ aston martin db5. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ russian tank. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ armoured train. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03. ^ goldeneye gadgets. James Bond multimedia. Retrieved on 2007-01-03.

They weren't capitalised because I copied and pasted from the pages, but I've changed it now. For reliability: that section could be "cited" purely using the film as a primary reference, this source is just another way of showing the information, so reliability isn't so much of an issue. I mean, it accurately describes what's in the film so it is reliable, even if it has few credentials. I don't know if that qualifies, but it seems fairly pointless not to allow it.

• What makes this source reliable, and why isn't it correctly formatted?

^ a b bondmovies.com. Retrieved on 2006-11-11.

Not sure what you mean about the formatting; it uses the cite web tag, there just isn't much information to put in. Reliabilitywise - it is just a table constructed using the figures from BoxOfficeMojo (which is reliable) to compare the Bond films. To cite a comparison of all the films directly from BoxOfficeMojo would be tricky, so it's a way to avoid that.

• Inconsistent ref formatting - example - why is this correctly and completely formatted, with author last name first:

^ Last, Kimberly. "Pierce Brosnan's Long and Winding Road To Bond", GoldenEye (magazine), 1995. Retrieved on 2006-11-12.

• while this uses a different style

^ Ebert, Roger (1995-11-17). GoldenEye. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved on 2006-11-16.

• and others use no style?

^ "Hollywood mogul puts $200m price on James Bond's head;Albert "Cubby" Broccoli", The Sunday Times, 1990-08-12. ^ "Interview with Dalton", The Daily Mail, 1993-08-06. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference in formatting is a result of the difference between the "Cite news" and "Cite web" tags: the former puts the date near the end; the latter places it in brackets. The problem is that sometimes I am citing a news source, and sometimes a web source, so the formatting won't be consistent. The last use "no style" because of limited information available for them. I don't always have all the details; I just include what I know. Trebor 17:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. I appreciate the difference between cite web and cite news, but magazines and newspaper articles use the same format wrt dates. The first example (above) is a magazine, with the date after the magazine name. The second example is a newspaper, with the date before the newspaper. The third example is a newspaper, with info all over the place. Is "Cubby" the author? The three should use one, consistent referencing style - whichever you choose. Also, many of your refs aren't formatted at all, example: Opening Sequence W/ Daniel Kleinman. Retrieved on 2007-01-18. You give no biblio info about this ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] Fawn M. Brodie

I went on a wiki-surf after commenting on the Book of Abraham-FAC below and came across this very impressive biography. The writing is very good, as is the referencing, content, and balance. I'm sure various editors will find some ways to improve it, but it is a very good example of how good a wikipedia article can be. Semperf 18:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC) and John Foxe 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The article seems largely cited to one source. Of the 57 notes, about 14 cite a source other than Bringhurst. I'm not saying that's wrong, but it might be helpful to add a note explaining why Bringhurst is the definitive biography. Gimmetrow 21:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
• Support. (For FAC full disclosure: I worked on a relatively crude draft of this article based only on the chapter in Mormon Renegades.) This article has been dramatically improved in the last few months by User:John Foxe. It's a tricky subject on several fronts, but I think the article navigates these troubled waters well. Since Bringhurst has written the only scholarly book-length biography on Brodie (and one of only a handful of chapter-length biographies), it's not surprising the article uses him extensively. Controversial points, like the validity of her conclusions, appropriately employ a variety of sources. Cool Hand Luke 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - but only because of the one source issue - Fawn Brodie is a complex person and deserves more breadth of coverage from other sources. --Trödel 03:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object several problems: 2a (Lead), 2d (POV) - see WP:LEAD, concern about lack of sources, and please put further reading in some sort of order. More importantly, original author didn't nom this article, and POV concerns are raised on talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I don't understand why it matters if the original author nominated the article. Obviously this is now moot, but shouldn't a bona fide independent nominator be even better than a self-nom? Cool Hand Luke 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I've added some lead, and the POV concerns are no longer current. At least the article has been stable for some time now. If there's a virtue to the author nominating his own article—I should think the opposite should be true—then I hereby nominate it. There's not much I can do about Trödel's complaint about my use of Bringhurst. His is the only full-scale biography, and I've tried to step away from his interpretations when I could. I'd be happy for anyone to order the "further readings." In this case, none of them are very important.--John Foxe 22:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been bold and added Mr. Foxe as co-nominator. Semperf 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. Should have Template:Infobox_Biography or a similar template. Footnotes aren't consistent, some are references and some are actual notes. Lacks a wide range of references from different reliable sources (mostly all from the same source). Also, no sources in the lead. — Wackymacs 14:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • What policy or guideline requires the use of the bio infobox, which is obnoxious at times? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
    • WikiProject Biography highly suggests it, and all of the featured biography articles I have seen have an infobox. It doesn't hurt to add one. — Wackymacs 07:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I've seen enough valid objections to those boxes that I don't consider them obligatory, nor a reason to object on FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll second Sandy's objection. It simply restates the facts of the lead. We shouldn't try to put Ms. Brodie in a box, nor anyone else. It doesn't add anything to the article other than a mess. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Thirded. I fiddled with the infobox while Charles Atangana was a nom, but I ultimately removed it because it was ugly. No one objected. As for the other objections, I'm not sure of a better way to do inline citations and footnoting but the way this article does it. I've used a similar system on every FA I've put through this process with no problems. Finally, the lead does not require sources as long as the information in it is repeated in the body of the article with sources. As for the supposed over-reliance on a single source, it's inevitable with some subjects that this will happen. This isn't an article on George Washington. The FAs on Charles Atangana and George Washington Dixon lean heavily on the authors who have actually written anything of substance about the guys (one person in both cases). That the same would be true for this guy doesn't surprise me. — BrianSmithson 01:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment For what it's worth, I added the Template:Infobox_Biography. The lead has no sources because it's a summary of the article. The footnotes do indeed contain both notes and supplementary material; that's the nature of footnotes. If you believe that there are not enough sources for this article, name any serious treatment of Brodie not included or linked.--John Foxe 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Infoboxes: I don't think they should be obligatory, simply because they often over-compartmentalise a person's achievements and positions, and omit vital information because they need to be short. Tony 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. For the record, I wasn't objecting on the basis it should have a Bio infobox - that was merely an improvement suggestion. I was objecting because: "Footnotes aren't consistent, some are references and some are actual notes. Lacks a wide range of references from different reliable sources (mostly all from the same source). Also, no sources in the lead.". — Wackymacs 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose fair use images should have fair use rationales. --Peta 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 20:17, 9 January 2007.

[edit] New York City Subway

A lot of dedicated members who maintain this article have put a lot of work into making it a Class B article. It would definitely be great if this article would make it as a featured article on the main page, as dedicated Wikipedians like myself who contribute to WP:NYCS work hard to make it "perfect". --Imdanumber1 ( Talk | contribs) 06:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unsourced information. --NE2 06:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Object Lots of uncited information. Quite listy. Also, please avoid trivia sections in articles. Refer this to peer review for further improvements. Gzkn 06:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose despite being a member of WikiProject New York City Subway. Considering the article's length, there are far too few inline references (13) and quite a few external links that are only weakly related to the main topic. Perhaps it is one of my responsibilities as a member of the project to improve the article rather than just criticize it, but I feel that it needs more work than can be done over the course of a FAC nomination. Larry V (talk | contribs) 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)