Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/October 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Natalie Clifford Barney 2 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) 3 Barnard's Star 4 Pixies (band) 5 Amchitka 6 Battle of Ceresole 7 1933 Atlantic hurricane season 8 Edward III of England 9 Gliding 10 John W. Johnston 11 Hungarian Revolution of 1956 12 Buffy the Vampire Slayer 12.1 Random Ranting 13 Demosthenes 14 Star 15 2004 Atlantic hurricane season 16 Redshift 17 Final Fantasy IV 18 Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur 19 0.999... 20 Jake Gyllenhaal 21 Frank Macfarlane Burnet 22 Battle of Schellenberg 23 Leonhard Euler 24 Dhaka 25 Arctic Tern 26 Alcibiades 27 Enzyme kinetics 28 Ulm Campaign 29 Fauna of Puerto Rico 30 Kazi Nazrul Islam 31 Maraba Coffee 32 Compact Cassette 33 Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater 34 Stephen Trigg 35 Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 36 Third Servile War 36.1 Overview 36.2 Potential Issues 36.3 Votes/Comments 37 Fourth International 38 Mormon handcart pioneers 39 All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) 40 Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India 41 Witchfinder General (film) 42 City of Manchester Stadium 43 Photon 44 Theramenes

[edit] Natalie Clifford Barney

Self-nom. A minor writer who hosted a major literary salon in Paris and had, in my opinion anyway, a fascinating life. The article has been through a Wikiproject Biography Peer Review. Passed GA recently, and the GA reviewer suggested taking it to FAC. —Celithemis 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I don't currently have the time to read through and critique the entire article, but my early impressions are that it is quite excellent. However, a couple of issues: first, while there are oodles of references, the lead has only one reference; even if these points are sourced later in the article, there should still be footnotes in a lead which makes many claims (such as that most of the important writers on Earth met at her home). Second, there are about a dozen redlinks, and some redlinks occur multiple times; if someone is important enough to link to (especially if they're notable enough to link to twice), either write a stub about them (assuming they pass WP:BIO) or delink them. Those concerns aside, I could very well support this candidate once I can undertake a more thorough reading of the article. -- Kicking222 14:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Somewhere I had picked up the idea that footnotes in the lead were to be avoided. Oh well, live and learn. I've now added citations for the bits that amount to claims of importance, i.e., her roles in novels and the people who went to her salon. Does that cover it? I can add citations for anything that needs them; I'm just trying to avoid creating a thicket of repeated footnotes in the lead.

All red links are now stubbed or removed as well. —Celithemis 04:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Support The whole article looks great. Awesome job! -- Kicking222 14:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Bravo! What a marvelous article. I agree with Kicking's recommendations about the red links, but it seems that everything else in quite in order. Thank you for introducing this fascinating person to me! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I support per Kicking222 and Ganymead, as long as the red links are fixed. Lithpiperpilot 21:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support—what a fascinating lady. But let's be true to her and make the writing more stylish.
  • "over 60 years"—"more than" is classier.
  • There's a redundant "also" in the second para.
  • "Rather haphazard education"—The first word adds nothing and should be removed. Same for "in order to", which should be "to".
  • "reprinted over 70 times"—"more than", and don't we know exactly how many?
  • "Their romantic relationship was also a creative exchange that inspired both of them to write, Barney providing a feminist theoretical framework that Vivien explored in her poetry." Removing the "also" will probably make it stronger—up to your judgement. The second part, after the comma, is ungrammatical and awkward. Try splitting it with a semicolon— ; Barney provided ...

There'll be no shortage of interested WPians who can polish this with fresh eyes. Good work already. Tony 02:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?)

The next submission from WP:KLF is 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?), about the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu. Please accept my apologies for bringing more bad language to FAC, but this should be the last such nomination for a while! :) (We have other potential candidates to work on, but they're mostly profanity free). This article is a GA; it was also submitted to peer review but didn't get much response.

I believe this article is just about as complete as it can be, and well written. To address the criteria individually:

• Well written. I think so, but, as always, you're the judges. We're not professional writers so if there's anything below par let me know and I'll try to fix it.
• Comprehensive. I'm fairly certain this is as complete as can be; just about the only missing info I can think of is a series of valuations for the artefact over time, but I think the one valuation is quite enough for now. - this is an enyclopedia not a fact book, and we've made the point that it became a valuable collectible. That ought to be enough.
• Factually accurate, referenced, neutral: Yep.
• Stable: Yes. The article was pretty much complete back in June. We were waiting to get hold of an important review (now integrated), cite another assertion (removed), and add a value for the record on the collectors market (done). Other than that it's just been the usual tweaks and copyediting.
• MOS: Compliant I think. Lead is two paragraphs which seems about right for an album (but let me know if not), appropriate use of sections.
• Images: All have fair use rationales. However, we currently use 3 fair use images. Two are essential: a cover scan of the album, and a cover scan of the edited version released as a single. I welcome opinion on whether the 3rd image - Image:The JAMS - 1987 (What The Fuck Is Going On?) .jpg, the back cover - should be removed or not, or indeed whether it ought to be used instead of the front cover. You'll see why just by looking.

--kingboyk 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I haven't read the article, but if the back cover is relevant to article text, then it should be kept. The Duke of Copeditting, Bow before me! ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)]

Thanks for the comment. The back cover, as you can see, has "1987" in big letters, whereas the front cover doesn't show the name of the album at all and is quite generic (it's just The JAMs logo). The interesting point raised in the caption to the back cover is that it uses the typeface and stark white lettering on black background that would characterise their later promotional antics, right through to the concerted (and expensive) press campaigns of the K Foundation. However, I don't think that's mentioned in the body. Without prejudice to the continuing possibility of removing the back cover scan, I'll try to work something on that theme into the body. --kingboyk 12:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think this would be a bit fancrufty and out of context to talk about typefaces in an article on an album. We already mention it in The_KLF#Promotion and in the K Foundation articles. Therefore, my original fair use question stands :) --kingboyk 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, The lead feels a little weak. It doesn't even mention the KLF (except by alias) or the fact that it was part of a larger pattern of releases from them that heavily used sampling. "deliberatively provocative" doesn't tell me much about the music itself; the first couple sentences of the composition section tell me far more. Also, the flow of the prose was confusing on first read through. The main body starts before the record was released with the release of a different record, and then sort of speeds through the events without signposting "hey this is the release this article is about." At first I was confused because it mentions a record that's actually the focus of a different article, and I just assumed it would begin by talking about the article's subject.Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for the thoughtful comments. In 1987 they were The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu, and The KLF name had not yet been debuted; referring to their body of work collectively as the work of "The KLF" is something that's happened over time and not necessarily with their consent, following their rise to fame under that later name. Indeed, in their last hurrah of 1997 ("Fuck the Millennium") they called themselves "the artists forever known as The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu"). Nonetheless, I think for consistency and to inform readers who access this piece in isolation we ought to be referring to their more famous incarnation - and their real names - in the lead, so I'll attend to that.
• The "Context" section is quite heavy on "All You Need Is Love", their debut single which is featured on this album. Of course, we want to set the scene so this article works in a standalone fashion, and "All You Need Is Love" is a key work on the album. Again, though, you make a fair point so I'll see if I can polish the section a little bit to address your concerns. Will post back again when it's done.
• Thanks again for the comments, they're really helpful. --kingboyk 12:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding "deliberatively provocative backdrop": The lead of course should be a summary. If - as you confirm - the Composition section is telling you in a satisfactory level of detail how the album is constructed and what it sounds like, I think the only thing we need to do is be sure that there's an adequate summary of that section in the lead. We don't have to provide detailed compositional info in the lead, I'm sure.
    "The album was produced using extensive unauthorised samples that plagiarised a wide range of musical works. These provided a deliberately provocative backdrop for beatbox rhythms and cryptic, political raps." I think that's a fair, concise, nicely written summary. It covers samples, plagiarism, confrontational attitude, beatbox, political messages and rapping in a mere 2 sentences. If you don't think it's a fair summary, please let me know a little more specifically what you think is missing so I can attend to it.
  • I've made some changes in the Context section, clipping a short section of text, removing a quotation about the construction of "All You Need Is Love", and (hopefully) making the narrative clearer. I've also trimmed the Drummond quote to focus entirely on the recording of the album, removing commentary on the single and his dig at the music industry, and moved it to the Composition section.
    The net result is that we have one paragraph on background, and then get straight into detailing the album release. Much better, I think so thanks for the suggestion. I'm feeling a little unwell so may not have done a perfect job; more comments are certainly welcome.
  • I'm having second thoughts about mentioning The KLF, or even the guys' names, in the lead. "All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)" is an FA and doesn't do it. The problems with mentioning The KLF are that The JAMs is just as valid an identifier for them, and I don't want to lose the early-1987 "vibe". This album was released in June 1987. KLF Communications was "born" in October 1987, and the first record by the duo as "The KLF" didn't come until 1988 ("Burn the Bastards"). We do mention The KLF in the first sentence of the Composition section, where we contrast the styles of The JAMs in 1987 and the duo's later work as The KLF. I think that's enough. Do you agree with me or are you adamant that the lead must mention The KLF?
    With regards to slotting in "Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty" into the lead, I'm just (perhaps because under the weather) not seeing how I can do it:
    • 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) was the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs).
    • 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) was the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty, The JAMs).
    • 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) was the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs) (Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty).
    • 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) was the debut album by The Justified Ancients of Mu Mu (The JAMs) — Bill Drummond and Jimmy Cauty.
  • Do you like any of those?
  • Diff for changes in response to above comments: [1] · Revision at FAC · Current Revision --kingboyk 19:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've attempted to address the concerns regarding sampling and the notion that this was a continuing theme in their work (another excellent comment by the way). I've also included my favourite option from the above list for identifying Drummond and Cauty in the lead. Diff. I'm not entirely happy with the use of brackets "(included on the album)", but I think we should mention that "All You Need Is Love" is included on the album. Your comments please. --kingboyk 20:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: we cannot be putting obscenities on the Main Page. Madman 19:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not actionable. Going onto the front page is decided at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Here we simply decide if an article is of the highest standard or not, with no prejudice. Whilst I personally have no current intention of seeking a front page placement for this article, should the request ever be made you can object then. --kingboyk 19:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Has Wikipedia become so process-bound that we are devoid of plain old common sense? I have opened a section on the Talk page to discuss this. Madman 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • No, it hasn't, on the contrary. Plain old common sense says that articles on Wikipedia are not censored. Plain old common sense says that articles may include profanity and still be Featured ("Fuck the Millennium"). Plain old common sense says that an article's quality as a piece of writing is entirely seperate from it's suitability for placement on the front page: an article may be an FA and never get onto the front page.
        Also, when this article was new we considered a "Did You Know" submission and were told that it could go on the front page, but would just be called 1987 (1987 (album) is a redirect. --kingboyk 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Much of the composition section is sourceless. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Right. That's because it's mostly based on what the recording sounds like; the record is the source. (All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) is the same). We're stuck between a rock and a hard place really - don't describe the sound in detail and folks will complain, describe it in detail and they'll say where's the sources :) Of course, there are still citations in that section for facts which might be controversial (mostly usage of samples).
    Look at it another way: No source describes the record in this much detail except the record itself. If a source did provide this much detail, we'd still have to paraphrase it otherwise we'd be copying verbatim and violating copyright.
    If there's anything which looks to you like original theory let me know or tag it with {{fact}}, please. --kingboyk 09:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • In other words, it's original research... JimmyBlackwing 12:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think so, no. That's a pretty bold accusation. This is no more original research than current FAs about songs and albums. We cite when we say a sample is used. We back up the descriptions with some cited quotations. If you think anything there needs a citation please tag it with {{fact}} rather than making sweeping generalisations. --kingboyk 13:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Very well, I have done so. JimmyBlackwing 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Blimey that was quick. Thanks very much. I was working on a breakdown on the talk page; I'll have to now see what you've marked and how it compares. --kingboyk 13:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
            • Fair cop. I'll attend to it. Thanks ever so much. --kingboyk 13:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
              • No problem. Reading through the section, the original research wasn't as bad as I had first feared. Once those things get cited, it shouldn't be a problem. I just jumped in to make sure it wasn't overlooked, so I'll just bugger off now and let the nomination take its course. JimmyBlackwing 13:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
                • Yes, I think we were both about 50% right there (you were right, it needs more cites, I was right it's not an opinion piece :)), so apologies for biting your head off :) I think I can source everything you've tagged, and will work on it this afternoon. Your followup comments will be most welcome when it's done (it's not always easy to get comments on these pop culture articles). Thanks again. --kingboyk 13:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've now provided the requested citations. I think it's as well referenced as a composition section on a 20 year old underground deleted album can be :) The section was written by my cowriter at WP:KLF, and whilst he clearly used the published sources he didn't fully cite them (and also left a few juicy details unincluded). I've gone through the sources again today, so am now fully confident it's comprehensive and well referenced. The Composition section will now need another copyedit and a read from top bottom with fresh eyes, which I'll do tommorow.
  • Any further comments or criticisms please let me know.
  • Diff: [2] Previous revision Current revision. --kingboyk 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Pending two concerns...

1. The audio samples should probably be in boxes per Wikipedia:Music samples. It makes them easier to find and doesn't disrupt the text as much.
2. The composition section consists of many one or two sentence paragraphs. Shouldn't they be combined into fewer, longer paragraphs?

Overall, very nice work! Wickethewok 05:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, I'll look at the audio boxes. The composition section was already fairly short paragraphs, but I split it into one paragraph per song after adding extra citations and a little new material yesterday when working on JimmyBlackwing's suggestions. #1 on my todo list today was to give the Composition section a further edit and to decide on the paragraphs issue. Looks like you've pre-empted me :) Will attend to it later today (and may be asking for some advice, we'll see). --kingboyk 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Done. "Composition" section consolidated into paragraphs with the following themes: Overview, Side 1, Side 2, Drummond and Cauty, postscript. --kingboyk 16:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced. Although I knew absolutely nothing about the band or album before reading this, I found the article particularly helpful and informative. I noted a few minor issues (a contraction outside of quotes, and some minor wording issues that occasionally caused NPOV violations), but nothing serious. Excellent article. JimmyBlackwing 10:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Were those problems addressed in yesterday's edits or do they still exist? I'd prefer to nail them, an FA ought to be damn near perfect. --kingboyk 10:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you want the FAC to be perfect, then here they are:

1. "People did indeed hear about 1987, including the management of Swedish pop group ABBA" - Improper voice. Something like "However, 1987 became well-known, with the management of Swedish pop group ABBA unamused by the album" would be better.
2. "a prostitute with a very vague resemblance to Agnetha from ABBA" - Could use a citation. Otherwise, it's kind of original research.
3. "They were, by their own account, towed back to England by the AA." - If it's a direct quote, then "towed back to England by the AA" should be in quotation marks. Otherwise, it could use a re-wording to make it more formal.
4. "The JAMs were not entirely sure what they would have said to ABBA if they had been able to meet them." - Minor informality issue. Something like "The JAMs were unsure of what their comments towards ABBA would have been, had they been able to meet them" would improve this.
5. "This served Drummond and Cauty's newly-emerging legend-making aspirations well." - Minor NPOV violation. No idea how you would go about fixing this one.
6. "1987 is built around samples of other artists' work, 'to the point where the presence of original material becomes questionable'." - Improper voice makes this seem slightly POV. Quote should be attributed to its source to fix this.
7. "A "stunning audio collage"..." - I would assume that the inline citation at the end of this sentence takes care of this. It would be great if it could be placed directly after the quote and attributed to its source, to ensure proper voice.
8. "NME's Danny Kelly was not so impressed." - Would be better as "was unimpressed".
9. "Anybody who actually returned the album got rather a raw deal" - Improper voice, POV. Not sure how you would go about fixing it, though.

• And that's all I could spot. I can't imagine that there's much more than that in the article. JimmyBlackwing 11:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• You're thorough man :) Thanks for taking the time to explain what you meant, I'm sure subsequent reviewers will appreciate it.

1. That sentence has bothered me too, with your suggestions I can fix it.
2. That one's not original research. I've never seen the lady in question and wouldn't dare suggest any resemblance if it wasn't from the source :) That's covered by the reference "Brown, J., "Thank You For The Music", New Musical Express, 17 October 1987, passim.", written by the journalist who accompanied them. Note the passim which I think (if my fading memory from school days is correct) means "used liberally throughout this block of text". If you can improve the placement of the footnote to make this clearer please go ahead, with the caveat that footnotes are preferred to be after punctuation and most preferably after a full stop.
3. It's paraphrased from interview quotations in Melody Maker:^[1]
   Rockman: "Two minutes later, we were in the outside lane doing about a hundred and there was this huge explosion - the whole engine just blew up. A bullet must have hit it. In the end we were towed all the way back to England."
   King Boy: "Luckily we'd just joined the AA the day before. We got five star cover cos I was an associate member. It cost us 40 quid and saved us 400."
   I don't (in ignorance) see how the sentence is informal, and I think that "by their own account" is the responsible thing for the article to say; I'm presenting their account not the verified account of a neutral 3rd party. (I will, however, check the NME article again by the journalist who accompanied them; if he says the same we don't need a disclaimer. Checked. As I recalled, he mentions the shooting and the breakdown, but doesn't say how they got home.) Given that info, if you can find a better wording please edit the article directly or inform me here.
4. I think "comments" is unneccesarily formal. We are, after all, discussing the attempts of 2 slightly unhinged, and at this time obscure, plagiaristic DJs who had driven to Sweden on a whim (in a vintage American police car) in an attempt to "reason with" one of the most successful (and therefore, in industry terms, powerful) pop groups in history. We're not talking about a meeting between Gorbachev and Reagan :) However, looks like you've identified a punctuation issue. I'll add the missing comma and see if I get any insipiration to improve the wording without making it dull.
5. It's paraphrased from the source, but it's not perfect. I'll attend to that. Removed that line; I wonder if the whole paragraph should go? Or should it be beefed up with a quotation from the source to replace what I zapped?
6. That quotation style (original writing leading into a quote, with the source of the quote being only in the footnote) has IIRC been used in our 3 other FAs in similar contexts without comment, and I think it's appropriate here. The article is brimming with citations saying this album is chock-a-block with samples; it's not my opinion it's a recurrent theme in the sources and, with citations, the article. The quotation itself is cited and it takes one click for the reader to see where it came from. I'll pass on this one for now but will amend it if others think it's incorrect.
7. The entire sentence, including the quotation, is sourced from ""All You Need Is Love" review, Sounds, 14 March 1987.", the footnote for which appears at the end of the sentence (the generally preferred location). I think that's the correct placement.
8. If an article is to be "brilliant prose" it needs to take a little poetic licence. If we just go review, quote, review, quote, it's rather dull. I try to get a little narrative going by contrasting Kelly's opinion (slight disappointment) with the hugely enthusiastic Sounds (Sounds compared the work to T.S. Eliot; Kelly thought it didn't even bear comparison with other contemporary DJs.) The reader then gets Kelly's actual words, so they can see for themselves that Kelly was (largely) unimpressed. I think these little touches, providing narrative, gently guiding the reader but then giving them the direct quote so they can make up their own mind are something which seperates brilliant articles from the merely good. I might be wrong; I usually am :)
9. Again, poetic licence backed up by the sources. Anybody who'd held on to their original (as was their right, consumers can't be forced to return an album) would now be in possession of a valuable collector's piece. The figures quoted bear this out. That said, whilst I think the statement should stay it might be a little better worded. It's not a big deal but if anyone has better wording then (to quote The JAMs), "OK let's hear it...".

--kingboyk 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ Smith, M. E., "The Great TUNE Robbery", Melody Maker, 12 December 1987 (link).

• I see what you mean about "poetic license". The articles I write tend to be extremely formal, but unfortunately dry. No big deal about the things you disagreed with me on, since they're so excessively minor that I had to do some deep digging to find them. Good luck on the rest of the nomination, but it's hard to believe that an article this good won't get through. JimmyBlackwing 13:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support and for the detailed analysis. This diff reflects changes resulting from these last suggestions and a few other tweaks. --kingboyk 18:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This is your typical GA, nothing more nor less. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed GAs, I think this is well above that standard and heartily disagree; this is as comprehensive a piece as can be found anywhere on this subject, it seems to me to read very well indeed, and it's fully referenced. You're entitled to disagree of course but it would help if you could be a little more specific about what's wrong with it? --kingboyk 13:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• In my opinion Ghirla's objections aren't actionable. He / she must make specific FA criteria concerns to make his / her objection valid. Having said that, I'm voting Support for this article as I feel it meets FA criteria. LuciferMorgan 11:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The subject does not pass my notability criteria, but this is hardly actionable (except by having it prodded). What may be changed is prose (only teenagers would find it "compelling") and lack of illustrations. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Lol. If you're not interested in articles on popular culture why did you even read it?! And as for not being notable that's just laughable. It's the debut album by a chart-topping band and has 40 citations! FAs don't need images and I fail to see what images are missing anyway: it's an article on an album, and we have the album cover illustrated. --kingboyk 09:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The last time I checked FA criteria, it didn't mention anything regarding notability. Illustrations don't matter. This thus means all those points aren't FA requirements. The only FA requirement is "compelling" prose (1. a.) which I feel the article meets - I invite anyone to provide actual examples from the text of where the article fails in this. LuciferMorgan 12:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I think this article is well-written. It has excellent sources and makes good use of inline citations. I also found it very informative, as I had no knowlege on the sunject prior to reading the article. Good job. Jay32183 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnard's Star

Self-nom. I've brought this from 5 to 25K, adding virtually every paper to be found on the star. I think the planet controversy and Project D. set off the dry numbers and make for an interesting read. I'm not the best with numbers and User:RJHall has helped out during its peer review; if I needed to, I'd simply copy a clause from an abstract to make sure I was representing it properly. Also, thanks to User:DogNewTricks for working on images ("I wouldn't have uploaded the file unless NASA told me I could" :). Marskell 10:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - about as comprehensive as one could get, I thought. The only possible weakness is the prose may be too technical and sentences a little long in places but these are minor. I found it OK to read though others mightn't.Cas Liber 11:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I wasn't as relaxed as Cas Liber about the English and started listing the flaws. After a short while I found it was quicker to do an edit myself. My first problem was with the title: shouldn't it be Barnard's Star? It is a proper name and so deserves two capital letters. I also pondered whether it deserved to be called the second closest system. To me 'system' implies that there is more than one object and yet the article goes to great lengths to say that there is no evidence of a system at all. The reference to 'system' was therefore deleted. After that I ploughed on, clarifying where I could. There may be places where I have changed the intended meaning. This is not my fault; it is because I was trying to clarify something that wasn't clear to begin with. There are also now a couple of places where red links have appeared because something was not explained ('ARCINS', 'bolometric' and 'space motion'). I hope you find the changes useful, if not please reverse my changes. Because I have now had an extensive input, I should not vote. However if you reverse most of my changes, I will oppose only provisionally support until similar changes are made. JMcC 13:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Provisional support English is unclear in many places and suggested improvements have been completely reversed. It needs a full edit to remove its ambiguities. JMcC 13:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC) and JMcC 16:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, patience. For now, I have reverted because there were obvious errors—that it's too faint to see has nothing to do with its age; Star system quite commonly refers to an isolated star; the sentence in the intro that listed stuff in the body was rm'ed. I will try and re-incorporate your improvements and do, by all means, present a list. Maybe hold off on the "vote"--we're around hour 3 of a week. Marskell 13:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right about the proper noun; it had been hanging around in my head for a while, but I never systematically compared the sources. A large majority (though not quite all) use upper case. I have changed it, including changing instances in the body (no doubt missed a couple). Marskell 14:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment "Its apparent magnitude is 9.57." This sentence could use more information, the number by itself does not convey anything to the common reader. I suggest adding that the Sun's magnitude is -26.73 and that the faintest stars observable with naked eye has a magnitude of 6. This would help support the preceeding sentence and give more info. Joelito (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Good point. A bit has been added. Marskell 19:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• "In general a gregarious and well-admired man, he may have become embittered toward colleagues who disputed his findings." Is this supported by the reference found later in the paragraph? To me this sentence appears as too much editioralizing, especially the "may" claim. Howewver if supported the by the ref then it would be OK. Joelito (talk) 19:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed "may have become embittered" to "may have felt betrayed", as "betrayed" is used in the source (in a quote from a colleague). The source in general makes it clear the relationship deteriorated completely when Heinz questioned the findings. Marskell 08:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support My concerns have been addressed. Joelito (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support- I don’t know what qualifies for a “significant contributor”, but as Maskell said, I did make a few calls and emails to find a picture. However, I did not edit the text. I support this article because it is very informative. I do not think the information is too in-depth, and can be understood by the majority of readers. Also, the .gif image shows clearly what the “proper motion” means, and how extreme Barnard’s Star is (relative to the surrounding stars).-- ¢² Connor K.   12:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support — It's a good read and an interesting bit of history, at least to me. (I've always had this odd fascination with astrometry and nearby stars.) Just a few minor comments:

• The first sentence could mention that this is a "very low-mass star", where "very low-mass" is understood in the literature to mean below about 0.4-0.2 solar masses.[3][4]
• I would like to ask that the introduction state this is the second closest known star system. There is always the possibility of some very faint nearby star that has yet to be discovered, such as Nemesis (star).
• The image comparing the dimension of this star to the Sun and Jupiter looks a little rough. In particular Barnard's star has the appearance of an irregular orange blob, rather than a star. Could this graphic be improved?

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I made the intro changes. The pic looks a little rough because I did it myself in photoshop :). I'll try and tweak when I get a chance. Marskell 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: JMc placed a list of grammar & diction suggestions on my talk. It's quite massive, so I've placed it on the talk here to avoid putting people off if they want to stop by and comment. Don't want to divert attention at all. The list and my replies are all there. Marskell 10:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to see material from 'Star_systems_in_fiction#Barnard.27s_Star' discussed in the article instead of just linked in see also.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Here, I respectfully disagree. I think it's enough to link to this info in See Also. I realize "The Hitchhiker's Guide..." and others have mentioned Barnard's Star, but I think this page should be about the star as it is, mentioning all of the points that are effectively "timeless". I will have no objection if someone drafts a three or four sentence section re "In Fiction", but I don't think the absence of such should be held against the article. "In Fiction" is momentary. The numbers have an "absolute" importance, and the planet controversy is, if nothing else, an interesting "history of science" narrative that should make for intereseting reading ten or a hundred years from now; something like "Star Trek mentions it as a refuelling stop for the Enterprise" is just trivia, by contrast. Marskell 23:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Marskell. I did some reading on Barnard's Star in fiction, and most of it is trivia. If it served a monumental importance to a story, then maybe. But right now, all that is on that page is trivia. There isn't enough to write any text without it seeming like a poorly put together paragraph made out of a trivia section (which it would be).-- ¢² Connor K.   00:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • support -Pedro 11:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pixies (band)

Self-nominating again; I feel the article has improved since it's last FAC nomination, and I addressed many of the issues raised (for example, I added a Musical Style section, noting their influences). CloudNine 16:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nominate and support CloudNine 16:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Haven't read the whole article yet, so I can't support or oppose yet, but the album covers each appear in the article twice. I'd recommend converting the table of albums at the bottom to look more like the table of singles, as fair use images in a "gallery" are typically disallowed by Wikipedia, even if the use could be justified under the law. Jay32183 21:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment addressed Converted to a table format. CloudNine 16:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Unless I missed something, I'm pretty sure this article meets the FA criteria. I also would like to request that the redlink in the singles table be made at least a stub. Jay32183 17:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment addressed "Allison" now a stub. CloudNine 19:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - All direct quotations need to be inline cited. LuciferMorgan 23:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks like the citations are there, but come before the quotation rather than after. Jay32183 17:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as I think it is excellent. Good job! Tuf-Kat 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with Tuf-Kat, this is an excellent article. Trebor 10:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I've read through the article twice before today, and I must admit that it is superb. I must also admit that I hate to say how great the article is, because I absolutely despise the Pixies. They're my best friend's favorite band, and perhaps my worst favorite band. When "Bam Thwok" came out, you can't imagine how much I razzed my best friend over how terrible that song is (and he had no response, because he knew it was awful). I literally don't think I've ever heard a Pixies song I enjoyed, but with that said, the article is such a triumph that I can't not support it becoming an FA. -- Kicking222 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I don't like the Pixies that much, but this article is great. Well done, good and faithful servants, er, contributors (Matthew 25:24). I'm not sure if it's accurate, since I'm not familiar with the Pixies, but it's [[|Accuracy and precision|more than precise]]. It's direct, and its length is due to its plethora of content, not wordiness. This deserves to be an FA, in my opinion. Gracenotes ^T § 18:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. As per Wikipedia:Music samples, it is preferable if you put the samples nest to text in boxes rather than grouping them in the end. CG 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment addressed - Well, the song samples are included in the prose (as in Pink Floyd) as well as in the end (I put samples at the end so it's easier to sample how the band progressed through their career). CloudNine 21:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 22:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amchitka

Nominating article which is well sourced and appears well-written. Open to any suggestions, which I will implement as soon as possible. CynicalMe 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support now that all the issues raised in the WPMILHIST peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 22:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I'm impressed. Well written, and though it doesn't mean anything in terms of it being an FA, it was practically completely written by Jakew. drumguy8800 C T 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good, appears comprehensive, well-cited. Interesting topic too. Tuf-Kat 00:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. It's a bit incomprehensive and choppy in my view. Each section comprises three paragraphs which are made up of only two sentences. Orane (talk • cont.) 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that this fascinating subject is explained in a manner that fully conforms to policy. (Note: I'm responsible for much of the work on this article.) Jakew 10:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a very nice article deserving its star :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just fixed a little spelling error; there might be more of them, but the article is well-referenced, nicely imaged and comprehensive. Batmanand | Talk 14:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a.
  • "miles", again and again. What about the other 95% of the world's population?
  • "It is about 42 miles long, and varies from 2 to 4 miles in width."—Spot the redundant word. We're told this again in the next section.
  • "though it is monitored for leakage of radioactive materials."—The leakage. "Although" is more usual in formal registers.
  • "oblique subduction"—Is there a link for this?
  • Why are some of the plain years linked? Gee, 1920 starts with "Babe Ruth is traded by the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for $125,000, the largest sum ever paid for a player at that time." Is that relevant?
  • "The U.S. Army established bases on Adak and 13 other locations." Should that be at 13?
  • "in order to prevent"—Spot two redundant words.

Needs a thorough copy-edit throughout. Tony 16:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the concerns you raised. CynicalMe 17:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Lots of short paras. Section on geography is little more then stub section, most of the article is devoted to history. Seems to be missing important sections entirly: fauna, flora, human inhabitants, more detailed map would be nice.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment — I have just a few small concerns about the text:

• The introduction should link the terms "tectonically unstable" and "maritime climate" as these may not be familiar to every reader. Later the elements "americium" and "plutonium" can also be linked, since they are important to the controversy.
• When was the last estimated volcanic activity on the island? The Alaska Volcano Observatory web site has some information on the island geology.[5] There is plenty of interesting information, including a geological history, in the PDF text document.
• The claim is made that the Russians "exploiting the indigenous people". But it does not explain how. Were they put in slave labor camps? How was the exploitation linked to the population decline? I would suspect a decline either due to disease or economic hardships, but it is unclear.
• I think the sentence that begins, "Three tests were conducted:", should use semi-colons as separators between the three tests to clarify the comma usage.
• The World War II section references the names of several islands without clarifying where these are located with respect to Amchitka. A map of the vicnity would help here.
• Is "Vancouver" in the state of Washington or In B.C.?

Thanks! — RJH (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, Cynical, but throughout was my critical word. I had a quick look and found (1) In order to, (2) trivial year links, and (3) "publically" in one small section. Can you find someone else to go through it with fresh eyes; that's what I'd have to do in your position—use the value of unfamiliarity. Do you know how to locate the right person/people for this purpose? Tony 02:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I removed all year links.--Rmky87 17:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree with RJH. A section on geology, fauna and flora... is necessary for this article. CG 20:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Ceresole

Another quite obscure (but very interesting) battle. I've tried to make the narrative as easy to follow as possible, as the events themselves were rather confused. The article has undergone a peer review by the Military history WikiProject; I look forward to comments from a broader audience! Kirill Lokshin 15:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I support it, many details, and written very well. (I am in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history though I didn't participate in the peer review.) Hello32020 16:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support The Cryxic would definitely hit it. FA in every way.UberCryxic 17:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, easy to read deserves FA. Kyriakos 21:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Another quality submission by Kirill. Rlevse 22:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, another great article from Kirill! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support'. Well annotated and referenced. Nice supplemental graphs, charts, and images. Good structure and balance. --Randy Johnston 23:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Guys, "We belong to Military Project, hence we always vote for each other" principle is not very helpful. I would like to have an illustration of the battle. Has it never been painted? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  As far as I know, it hasn't. (Or, in any case, any paintings of it aren't actually labeled. There's plenty of period engravings with titles like "Landknechts in battle" and the like, but it's almost impossible to guess what actual battle—if any—they depict.) Kirill Lokshin 12:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

  I still would like to have one of these engravings illustrating the article. That said, I support the nomination. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've added Image:Bad-war.jpg, and I'll see if I can find one with arquebusiers in it. Kirill Lokshin 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am not part of the MILHIST project and I do not always vote for their FACs and I resent the insinutation that I do. That being said, I've found Kirill's (not the project's) FAC submission of the most consistent and highest quality.Rlevse 19:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I am part of the MILHIST project, but do not always vote for their FACs. Very well written overall. But what is the significance of the battle. Granted, the current WP:WIAFA does not require that an article have some broader relevance. But I strongly believe that the difference between a really good article and an article worthy of being a featured article is some commentary on its context and significance. Give us a few lines about:

• The causes of the war – the French-Habsburg Wars of 1521-1529 and 1535-1538) — the French goal of recapturing Milan.
• Alliances - Tell us about the French alliance with England’s Henry VIII of England and it's relevance (or link us to the main article).
• The denouement - was this important in the later development of the war — in the peace treaty of 1544 (you'd think) — the Council of Trent? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Williamborg (talk • contribs).

Hmm, wouldn't such material be more appropriate for the actual Italian War of 1542 article? WP:WIAFA calls for the article to be "focused on the main topic", and that topic happens to be this specific battle, not the broader Franco-Habsburg rivalry of the preceding half-century. As far as your specific points:

• I've added some comments to the "Prelude" section about the specific strategic situation in 1543–44; but the entire sordid history of the previous few decades needn't be rehashed in every individual battle article, in my opinion.
• Umm, what "French alliance with England’s Henry VIII"? France hadn't been allied with England since 1528, by this point. In any case, I think that issues of broad politics are best dealt with in the article on the entire war.
• No, it wasn't really important to any of those (i.e. "the battle proved to be of little strategic significance"). The war as a whole was relevant to Trent, but this battle in particular was not, having led to something of an anti-climax.

Broadly speaking, the battle—beyond getting an inordinately high number of people killed—wasn't really significant in any long-term sense. Kirill Lokshin 05:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the reasons you rose are very valid. Nothing that can't be fixed, and I will look into working on it. If they are, I hope you would support. Thanks for your input.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Kirill Lokshin 18:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I mean that you made a good point, but they are fixable. So i hope that after they are fixed, you can support this article.-- ¢² Connor K.   18:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Well written, but not in a language that is incredibly foreign to me. Many sources, very NPOV, complies with MOS, and interesting. Great pictures. Strongly believe it of the quality.-- ¢² Connor K.   17:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose!!! The FA criteria are totally inadequate for this article. Why did you submit it here? This article is beyond FAC criteria. First create a new category for such superb articles and then submit it there... Anyway ... Until then I support!--Yannismarou 18:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. No useful external links?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  Sixteenth-century warfare seems not to be the most popular of topics on the web. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Just glancing through, I saw many red links, could they be at least stubbed? btg2290 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  Down to four redlinks now (three in the navigational templates and one in the footnotes); I'm not certain if I have enough information to make meaningful stubs for these. Kirill Lokshin 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  And now down to just two redlinks. Kirill Lokshin 03:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  In any case, red links are not an obstacle for FA status.--Yannismarou 17:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1933 Atlantic hurricane season

Self-nom, I recently finished expanding this article, and I believe it now adheres to the featured article criteria. Support. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• A few things:
  • What happened with reference #6?
  • What was the link to 1933's ACE? The table is filled out, but there weren't any advisories that I know of... we still need the ref for that, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your copyediting. I fixed ref 6, though I'm not sure what to do about the ACE. I cannot find a reference for that info. Should we just remove it? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Reference for ACE: the best track!--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm... mind providing an inline citation for that one? I don't remember where to find it, and I imagine most users won't. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment can all the infoboxes be the same size please...and do something about those ugly white gaps. Todd661 12:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how we can do that. The infoboxes are in template form. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that anything can be done about the white gaps. Without them the layout would be really messed up. Jeltz talk 15:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All of them appear to be the same size in my browser... which ones are giving you problems? Titoxd^(?!?) 02:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, my mistake, all the hurricane boxes are the same and all the tropical storm ones are the same. I've strike out that comment Todd661 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• 'Support. íslenskur fellibylur

#12 _(samtal) 13:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: This is great, but comparing this article to the featured article 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and the featured List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, I can't help but think, shouldn't this be renamed List of .. and submitted as a FLC? darkliight^[πalk] 14:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I'm just basing it off of the 2005 AHS and the 2003 Pacific hurricane season being featured articles, not lists. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is of featured status but shouldnt be an article but a list. The page lists all the storms with a summary just like List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. 2005 Atlantic hurricane season talks about the season itself not individual storms. 2005 Season talks about the overall statistics of the season as a whole while this article gives each storm a section with a short summart. If you were to make the page List of storms in the 1933 Atlantic hurricane season how would it look different than this article? For some reason its hard to put this in words but hopefully you get where I'm going. I do agree though that this article definetely models after 2003 Pacific hurricane season but this brings about another point:2003 Pacific hurricane season doesnt look like 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Personally I feel 2005 season should be the model article but my point is the inconcistency in the layout of this articles. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones, each season article should give a "short summary for each storm". 2005 Atlantic hurricane season does not comply to this since it merges all the storms into the overall text rather then just meriting them their own section/subsection. I hope a general guideline for layout should be decided upon since this is getting confusing: some articles and lists look the same. - Tutmosis 20:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The 2005 season was very different. There was too much information to have it as a normal page, which necessitated the list of page. For 1933 AHS, there's not a terrible abundance of information, so I based it off the only normal FA season article. Every season article, excluding 2005, has the same format as being articles. Changing all 350 or so season articles to lists would require a lot of effort and is probably not necessary. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay thanks for clearing that up. But List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is pretty similar to this article, shouldn't it be an article not a list? - Tutmosis 21:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Indeed, we have picked a layout: 2005AHS is the exception, as there are several orders of magnitude of difference in the amount of information available, and there are more storms to talk about. Originally the "List of storms in the 2005AHS" page was an article, then someone asked if it should have been a list... so we're getting mixed signals here. What should it be? Titoxd^(?!?) 22:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, this article look like a list but in a way isnt since most lists do not have much prose but just present names in some order. This is a tough issue and Wikipedia:List guideline isn't much help on giving a definition. As originally I am going to lean more on the list side but it's not up to me and would like to see what the rest of the community thinks. - Tutmosis 23:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I still have an unanswered question in my mind. How come the featured List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looks the same (format wise) as this article and a lot more season articles. You mentioned you renamed it to "List" on someones request. So what was its name before that? Wasn't it only purpose to list the storms since 2005 Atlantic hurricane season is the article which talks about the season itself. So why is that list is similar in format as this season articles? Is it just me or is this not making any sense? - Tutmosis 17:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The list of 2005 storms was originally what the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season looked like. Prior to being at that location (list of 2005 storms), it didn't have its own article. It was just part of the season article. For a long time, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article looked the same as every other season article. Basically, you should ignore 2005. It was extreme circumstances that should not be the model for anything. I hope that makes sense, but this article resembles every other hurricane season article, including two "Good article" season articles and a featured season article, excluding 2005. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It was originally created as 2005 Atlantic hurricane season storms, after the 2005 season article was split after a long debate (see its talk archives about January). Before the fork it looked like this; the consensus was that it was excessively long and had a disproportionately large storms section. The greater the amount of info available on a season, the more non-storms sections in the article. In the case of the 1933 season, there is relatively little info available beyond what is currently embedded in the storms section. I would like to see a more complete discussion of the season's impact though; not just through the individual storm descriptions.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Well it's still confusing but never the less I'll vote support. This article is of FA quality and changing it to a list would make matters more confusing. Personally I feel the 2005 is quite a model article, especially the storms section that has all the storms merged together and organized by month. < I can't see how other season articles can not do this. Anyway, hope to see more storm related FACs. :) - Tutmosis 17:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. These kind of articles should be a summarise of all the individual hurricanes articles. Therefore, many sections are missing: "Impact", "Forecasts", "Preparations"... Even the FA 2003 Pacific hurricane season is missing these sections, and, I think, it doesn't deserve the FA status. CG 16:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There's only two indivdual hurricane articles for the season, and I believe it summarizes it well. You have to understand that the season was 73 years ago! I doubt there were any pre-season forecasts. As for impact, forecasts, and preparations, the season summary section summarizes those aspects, but there's not enough info for separate sections. I don't know why a featured season should have to have those sections. It wasn't 2005, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention, that it is the exact polar opposite of the approach WikiProject Tropical cyclones is taking, which indicates that season articles should be the priority, and then, only if these articles are going to be overwhelmed by excessive information on individual storms, the season article becomes a summary of the individual articles. In this case, the historical record gives us only this amount of information about the entire season. We don't have the benefit of satellite imagery, or in many cases, even damage reports; simply put, the information doesn't exist to warrant as many sections. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comments. I haven't gone through the article in detail, but have still found some possible issues:
  • {{1933 Atlantic hurricane season buttons}} is used in only one article (this one), why is it not substituted? Also, {{Atlantic hurricane season categories|1933}} can be substituted unless the category divisions are expected to change often.
  • "Sources" should be changed to "References".
  • A one liner intro to the timeline in "Stroms" section (either as a caption or a paragraph) would help. (At least mention it is a timeline)
  • In the lead: "It is important to note, however, that [...], especially those [..]." Too many guarding terms.
  • Also in the lead: "These dates conventionally delimit the period of each year when most tropical cyclones form in the Atlantic basin." (This can go to footnotes. Doesn't seem worth including in the lead. I may be wrong here.) — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I got all of them but the lead problems. Should I just delete the guarding terms? Though I did not add it, I feel it does serve a purpose, as there could well have been more than 21 storms. We just don't have today's technology to determine it. Also, the "These dates..." appears in every tropical cyclone season article, so, in conforming to the layout already set up, it should remain there. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Substing some of the standard templates TC WikiProject uses strikes me as sensible (a AWB run will sort that). I dislike with the "These dates..." start to the lead; that may be the standard format, but the notable exceptions are the two seasonal FAs (2005 Atlantic hurricane season and 2003 Pacific hurricane season), where the lead sentence gives an interesting (DYK-style) fact; and the boring "the season ran from X to Y" is relegated to paragraph 2.--Nilfanion (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I couldn't find the promised template substitution. I have given the article a copyedit, but there are a few more issues. The article is inconsistant on use of non-breaking spaces while refering to casualities. The article, at places, has words like 20&nbsp;people and at others 20 people. Consistancy is required (either way), and I personally feel that since "people" is not a unit of measurement, there shouldn't be non-breaking spaces. I have also edited the lead article I pointed out. Feel free to revert if you feel it got worse. One question possibly un-related to the article (showing my lack of knowledge): How did storm 11 start before storm 10, and 14 before 13? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I added the missing nbsp;s, as I had missed them the first time I gave a pass-through the article; since there were a few users that insisted on not having numbers + anything that could be remotely construed as a unit, I just went through the safer route and added all of them. As for the storm formation: 10 did form before 11, as well as 13/14... they are named/numbered when they reach tropical storm status. Titoxd^(?!?) 17:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Support. Since there appeared a consensus on template substitution, I went ahead to substitute them. I would also suggest to discuss this in the WikiProject page, so that (if recommended), it can be done en masse to all relevant articles. Tito has already fixed the non-breaking space issue. So it is time I give my support to the article. Good work, guys. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object. This article is not comprehensive. For example, a hurricane that killed 184 people gets only a brief paragraph. I've heard that this is because there simply isn't enough information available. Looking through the references it seems that all of the information was gleaned from the internet. Indeed, only three contemporary sources are cited (all from the noaa.gov archives). Of course there isn't much information available about the 1933 season on the internet. The internet didn't exist in 1933. I guarantee there are dozens, if not hundreds, of news articles available about these storms in microfilm reels at your public library. This article should incorporate the numerous newspaper articles published about these storms at the time, not just the smattering of secondary sources available at the NOAA's website. Kaldari 23:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As an example, I have added a paragraph about the destruction caused by Hurricane 14 based on a contemporary New York Times article. Kaldari 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • OK, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kaldari brings up an excellent point. The article can and should be fleshed out a lot more from microfilm and dead-tree sources. -- BrianSmithson 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Looking good. I've copy edited the article, but I still have a few concerns. First, there are several places in the text where we are told that "damages, if any, are unknown." Some of these statements are footnoted, but many are not. This makes we wonder: Are these unreferenced declarations of unknown damages there because damages are really unknown or because the editors couldn't find anything? In short, I think these statements should all be sourced or they should be removed. Secondly, a few places state that a particular storm "lost its identity". This sounds really strange to me; what is it supposed to mean? I was tempted to replace all of them with "dissipated", but I wasn't sure that this is what was meant. Can these be changed? Third, I question whether the See also links to List of notable tropical cyclones and List of Atlantic hurricane seasons are needed. For the former, certainly the fact that a few of the storms on the article page itself have articles about them (linked to per summary style) should be enough. Why is it pertinent to have a link to a list that includes Hurricane Betsy and Hurricane Hugo? It's like adding List of African Americans to the Michael Jordan page. As for the latter link, we've already got links to the 1931–5 seasons in the infobox. Is it really necessary to have links to 1993 and 2004? I'd ax both. I've also left an invisible notation where there was some weaseling going on. Over all, it's a good piece, and I will glady support once these issues have been addressed and/or dealt with. — BrianSmithson 13:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair points. First, I tried looking high and low for damage or impact, but some I did not find anything. As such, I removed the "damage is unknown" from the storm sections. For the sections where I said lost its identity, I changed the first one to last observed, as we don't know for a fact the storms actually dissipated then, and the second one to dissipated, as the article did say it dissipated. The See also links is project wide standard we use; all season articles mention the List of notable tropical cyclones and the list of seasons, just for reader's ease. I guess so if they're curious about checking other seasons, but don't feel like going to the top. BTW, thank you for that good copyedit. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Have you taken a look at the one use of weasel words I identified? If that's taken care of, I'll ignore the "See also" business (which someone should change project-wide, I think). — BrianSmithson 22:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh yea. I know it's a weasle word, but the source (monthly weather review) says it was one of the most severe in the Mid-Atlantic. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Support. I took care of the weasel word. — BrianSmithson 22:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See above, I just finished adding newspaper info on several storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A ProQuest search of the Historical New York Times database for the word "hurricane" during the year 1933 returns 400 articles, many of which would be helpful here. And that's just one newspaper—there's plenty of reliable source material out there. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • But if the newspaper requires a subscription to access the archives, that isn't exactly free. This is supposed to be a free encyclopedia, right? I only prefer to use sources that anyone can access. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Then you're restricting yourself to using inferior sources in virtually all cases, because you're making it impossible to use newspaper articles (which usually require a subscription after a week), magazine articles, journal articles, and most importantly, books. Wikipedia makes information free by using free and non-free sources to write the best possible summary of a subject. Restricting ourselves to using freely available information as sources would be extremely damaging to our mission. Rather, we must find the best sources, regardless of their availability (within reason), and use them to create the best free summary of the topic possible. Getting NYT articles is certainly within reason in this case—any decent-sized library in the US should have them, and I'd imagine that many large libraries around the world have them as well. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, ok. Well, I checked in my school library, and their newspaper records don't go back that far (~1970). Hurricanehink (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Try your public library. They usually have microfilm archives of major newspapers going back into the 1800s. Kaldari 22:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, I just finished adding information from an internet based newspaper archive, located here, so they are completely verifiable. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

*Oppose, I feel that there is very little information on the impact of most of the landfalling storms in the article, they cannot really be said to be comprehensive. Whilst NOAA sources are canonical for information on the storm, press coverage is the primary sourcing for impact information. The 400 articles that Spangineer refers will be freely available at libraries; as will other articles from other major newspapers. It is unfortunate that they are not online, but that's life. While it is likely that a signifcant number of those articles will be redundant to NOAA's information, there undoubtedly will be some useful articles there. This article cannot really be said to represent Wikipedia's best work if an afternoon in a public library could turn up a significant amount of new information.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, with all the changes including to the lead I think this is enough now.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose there is not enough information on the impact of the landfalling storms. If more information is found at libraries, or online still then it may qualify for featured. I however would support an upgrade to A-class or Good article status, because it is only rated B-class at the moment. Hello32020 01:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm working on it. I found a newspaper database online so anyone can verify it, and I'm in the process of searching through the various newspapers to get some impact. I recently expanded storms 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll now Support due to the large amount of information added by hink. Deserves featured status now. Good job hink. Hello32020 00:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—1a. Someone going to fix the first sentence?
  • "... though one storm existed prior to the start of the season." (1) This tortured use of "existed" seems to be cropping up all too often on WP. What does it mean? Did it exist for all of eternity before the start of the season? I think that you mean "... though there was one storm before the start of the season." But please give us a more precise idea of the time—then it may qualify as encyclopedic language: "in the month before the start of the season"? (2) Most style guides say to use ALthough in formal style. (3) "prior to" is an ungainly Latinism for something simpler and native: "before". (4) The article is about hurricanes. Was this storm a hurricane?
  • "... on record, with 21 recorded ..."—awkward repetition.
  • "prior to 1960s (before technologies such as satellite monitoring were unavailable), historical cyclonic data may be inaccurate, and tropical storms or depressions that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially those of relatively short duration, may have remained undetected."—Here's the "prior to" thing again. And shouldn't it be the 1960s? Do you mean "available"? "And", not "or" before "depressions". Remove "relatively". "Remained" --> "may not have been detected".

Well, that's the first paragraph. The density of problems, and the inattention to detail that they demonstrate, suggest that the whole thing needs an hour or two by a proper copy-editor before we take it seriously as "professional" writing, as required. Tony 15:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Not enough information on each storm. I'd move it up to A-class and I would definitely support a GA nomination though, but this is one step too far IMO at this time. CrazyC83 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Now support, due to the new information found. CrazyC83 01:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The new information that has been added needs a good copyediting. There are several grammatical problems, for example, "During the storm, there were at least 10 cases of looting, all of whom were executed." Kaldari 03:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. While this is indeed an excellently researched and presented article, I do not believe the first criterion is filled, "(a) Well written means that the prose is compelling, even brilliant." On the contrary, there are many instances of awkward wording, run-on sentences, and sentences that do not convey their meaning very well. I have some examples:

The season was consistently active -What does this mean?

For hurricane 2,the hurricane brushed southern Tobago and made landfall on northeastern Venezuela on June 28, becoming the earliest known tropical cyclone in the area. -earliest in the year, or the first ever recorded there?

For 3, The rainfall led to flooding and washouts -explain what a "washout" is, in lieu of discriptive wikilink.

For 10, Due to uncertainty in its position, tropical storm warnings were issued for portions of the southern Texas coastline. -this could use some further explanation, something like "Because forecasters were unsure what the impact would be," or something to that effect

For 11, a tropical storm was first seen to the east of the northern Lesser Antilles -this really isn't accurate, tropical storms aren't seen, they are deduced from ship reports and such (at least, they were back in the day)

These are just a few examples of course. I did a copyedit of the opening paragraphs, but the entire article could use one. In addition to these problems, the individual storm sections do not do a very good job of segwaying between the storm's timeline and its impact. If these issues are fixed, I will support. -Runningonbrains 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Just went over it with a fine-toothed comb. Any other issues? Titoxd^(?!?) 06:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Now better? Titoxd^(?!?) 19:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not so fast: your fine-toothed comb has left problems in just about every sentence of the lead:

• • "The 1933 Atlantic hurricane season is the second most active Atlantic hurricane season on record." "Was" would be more natural here.
  • "The season, which began on 1 June 1933 and lasted until 30 November 1933, is surpassed only by the 2005 season, which broke the record with its 28 storms." Flabby. Try: "The season, from 1 June 1933 to 30 November 1933, was surpassed only by the 2005 season, with its 28 storms." Of course 2005 broke the record if it was the only one to surpass 1933.
  • "The 1933 season saw tropical activity before its start, as one storm formed prior to the start of the conventionally delimited season; by the time the season ended, twenty-one tropical cyclones were detected that year." Very flabby, and illogical to boot. Try: "There was already significant tropical activity before the start of the 1933 season, and by the end of the season, 21 tropical cyclones had been detected." Note that "21" is used in the next paragraph: consistency is required.
  • The status of the next two sentences in this problematic first paragraph is illogical, both in relation to the previous material and to each other. "Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable. Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected." Try reversing the sentences, so that our poor readers first understand why you're making the point. Perhaps parentheses around the second sentence will do the trick—you decide. "Tropical cyclones that did not approach populated areas or shipping lanes, especially if they were relatively weak and of short duration, may have remained undetected. (Because technologies such as satellite monitoring were not available until the 1960s, historical data on tropical cyclones from this period are often not reliable.)
  • "Several of the storms had significant impact on land; seven storms killed more than 20 people. All but one of the 21 known storms affected land at some point during their lifetimes." The "land" point is repeated.

This is not good enough, and these problems are not buried further down, but right at the top, which you'd have paraded as one of our best on the home page .... Tony 03:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a lot of that is based on preference. I personally believe that "... is the second-most active Atlantic..." is more natural, that saying there was "Already significant tropical activity before the start of the season" implies there was much more than there actually was, and that the order for "Because technologies... tropical cyclones that did not approach land" doesn't really matter in the context of the article. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right, it's based on my preference for logic and ease of reading. You can use "is" in the first sentence, but it conjures up the act of looking at records (in the present tense), rather than what actually happened in 1933. I still think that this historical topic should be introduced with "was". King Henry VII haS more conflict with Rome than any other English monarch ... hmmmm, looking at a grid showing this info, perhaps. Reword my suggestion for the second sentence—you know the topic—but it's no good at the moment. I don't comprehend your objection to my advice about reversing the order of the last two sentences in the first para. They certainly don't flow smoothly at the moment. Let me know when you fixed the lead, and I'll have another look. Then, we'll deal with the rest of the text. Tony 05:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I switched the last two sentences of the first paragraph. I left it as "is", because at the time, the season was the most active at the time, but it still is the second most active. I also fixed the redundant "land". I disagree with the location of where the total number of storms formed, so I changed it. Before it came after 2005's record number, so I put it in the first sentence. As such, I altered the sentence mentioning the preseason storm to give a different fact; a tropical cyclone was active for all but 13 days from the formation of the second storm to the dissipation of the 18th storm. It probably will need a bit of rewording, though the content is better now, IMO. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep going. My eyes should not be able to rall at random on problems such as:

In northeastern Venezuela, the hurricane destroyed many houses, businesses, and boats, while strong winds downed power lines. Many people were killed, and property damages totaled to over $386,000 (1933 USD).[1] In Cuba, the storm killed 22 people, while damages amounted to $4 million (1933 USD).[5] Finally, the hurricane caused severe damage and several deaths in northeastern Mexico.[1] In all, the hurricane killed 35 people.[6]

• • "While" is a problematic connector. Do you mean that at the time the power lines were downed, the hurrican destroyed many houses etc? No, I think "and" is what you mean. Same in the subsequent sentence. "Totaled to over" is ungrammatical (remove "to", but why not something simpler: "was more than". "Damage" is standard, unless you're a materials engineer (even then, it's awkward). "Finally"—Do you mean at the end of the storm, or the end of this paragraph? It makes the readers feel tired, so just get rid of it.
  • In the subsequent section, every sentence starts with "The storm" or an equivalent item. See if you can use semicolons to join them into one structure, removing the need to trot out the subject each time. Where is the metric equivalent for "nine inches"?

Can you find fresh eyes to go through the whole text? Tony 01:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed "while" to ands, removed finally, and changed Storm 3 a bit. I don't see the problem with "Property damages totaled to over 386,000 dollars" at all. It is based on preference, and I prefer to use a strong verb and the word damage. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope, the problem is "totaled to". You can total "up to", you can total "over", but not "to over". Tony 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edward III of England

Self-nom. I believe this article fulfils the criteria for a Featured Article. I have skipped the peer review, as I understand this to be optional ("you may wish to..."). Eixo 00:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object: Looks well-developed, but I'm concerned about a couple things:

• The density of citations in the Biography section seems low—is all the material there tied to a specific reference? Sometimes it's not clear. For example, the first citation—does it refer to the entire "Early life" section, or just to the sentence it follows? If the latter (which would be the natural assumption), the rest of the section needs to be cited as well.
• The prose needs work:

• "At Michaelmas (September 29) 1376 he fell ill"... date in the middle doesn't make sense
• "After recovering briefly"... this isn't the right adverb for that verb—something like "after being recovered for a brief period"
• "He was succeeded by his ten-year-old grandson, King Richard II of England, son of the Black Prince, who had predeceased Edward the previous year." The subject of "who" isn't immediately clear: try something like "He was succeeded by his ten-year-old grandson, King Richard II of England, since his son, the Black Prince, had died the previous year."
• I'm not a fan of statements like "already mentioned", etc.; usually they're unnecessary
• "Other legislature of importance"—should be "legislation"
• Several "there are"/"this was" type sentences; eliminate these boring things.
• Using &mdash; instead of &ndash; would be nice.

Hope these comments are helpful! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 05:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. Most of what you mention are lesser issues with the language, and I've taken care of that as I saw best. As for the citations, my take on this is that citing the most basic historic facts - such as dates and events - is overkill. I've reserved the citations for statements of historical interpretation, and some of the more peripheral facts. I've added a few more citaitons in the 'Biography' section, if there is anything you find controversial, please put a 'citation needed' tag on it. Still, I'd like to point out that this article is infinitely much better footnoted than most, if not all, Featured Articles on similar subjects. Eixo 17:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See User:Spangineer/inline citations for my take on inline citations—someone attempting to verify this article or writing a paper on this guy will want to know more or less where each piece of information comes from, as opposed to having to read all those "general references" to figure it out. Granted, this is better than many FAs, but standards are higher now than they used to be. Besides, why stop at "above average" when "excellent" is within reach?

Sorry about the confusion with dashes; the mdash should be used to separate clauses, and the ndash or hyphen should be used in ranges of numbers. I believe I've fixed all of these; if you prefer spaces around the dashes feel free to do a search/replace to fix that, or I can.

Regarding prose—it just feels verbose and boring. I don't think the distinction between active and passive verbs is a "lesser issue with the language"; rather, it is of utmost importance. I've trimmed alot of fluff and passivity out of a couple sections; I hope you agree that it's an improvement. If you do, I'll continue. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:37, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate the effort you (and also Hmains) put into this. Thanks a lot! I feel the level of citations is good enough at the moment, but as I said, if there is anything you feel needs referencing, pleace let me know. Eixo 23:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Problems I can't figure out:

• How are these sentences connected? "An attempt by the king's second son, Lionel of Antwerp, to subdue the largely autonomous Anglo-Irish lords in Ireland failed. The decade following the Treaty of Brétigny was one of relative tranquility in France, but in April 1364 John II died in captivity in England, after unsuccessfully trying to raise his own ransom in France."

• I've tried to clarify it.

• "The parliament was called to grant taxation" Grant taxation to who? Normally taxes are imposed on the public.

• No. As I've explained in the "Parliament and taxation"-section, there was a clear consensus that taxes could not be levied without the consent of the community of the realm, represented by parliament.

• I've never before seen the structure "grant taxes". A government can impose taxes, collect taxes, or distribute tax revenues. I'm not sure which of these three "grant" is attempting to communicate. It seems like parliament is imposing taxes (or perhaps "legislating new taxes"), so I changed a few of these. Feel free to change them, but please add clarity. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The expression "grant taxes" is quite common for the historiography of this period, try doing a search on Google Books. The king would make a request, parliament would - almost invariably - decide to grant it, the king would appoint collectors, collect the tax and use it as he saw fit to protect the national interests. Every levy of the kind I have described had to be granted individually. The term "grant taxes" is used because parliament represented - with full powers - the community that was to pay them. I believe this is sufficiently explained in the "Parliament and taxation"-section. Eixo 12:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• "were dismissed from their possessions" Is this supposed to be "were dismissed from their positions"?

• Slip of the pen (or key). Thanks for catching it!

• This doesn't make sense: "Nevertheless, the labour shortage had created a community of interest between the smaller landowners of the House of Commons and the greater landowners of the House of Lords." What exactly is a "community of interest"? It implies cordial relations, but that's inconsistent with the competition among landowners mentioned previously.

• Well, in spite of competition, there was agreement among the landowning classes that wages should be kept down through the use of legislation. Maybe I could have made this clearer, but I'm not sure how, without becoming overly verbose. Eixo 18:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll probably find more as I continue through this. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 02:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• One more thing: "Commons" is short for "House of Commons" and should thus be singular, correct? I changed a few of these, but there may be more that I didn't catch. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• When written with a capital 'C': yes, and as such I guess singular is correct. I think you got them all.

• In addition to the one immediately above (from yesterday), what about these:

• "the new order carried connotations from this legend by the shape of its symbol." (I'm not sure what the "symbol" is—presumably the round table, but what's the analogous thing in Edward's time?)

• Both the table and the garter are round, I've elaborated on this.

• "the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-French since the Norman conquest." Is this equivalent with "the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, especially among the largely Anglo-French aristocracy?" (minus the Norman conquest detail).

• Not exactly. When the aristocracy became nationalised, this strengthened national unity between them and the commons. The point is that there was no longer an Anglo-Saxon general population governed by an Anglo-Norman aristocracy - they all became English.

• "the vernacular" is English, right?

• Yup, just trying to vary the language a bit.

• I toned down the language in the "absurdity" part—I think it's sufficient to say that modern scholars reject the claim. More than that might border on POV.

• Fair enough, I probably got a bit carried away there.

• Overall, now that I've thoroughly read the article, I'm impressed. Interesting guy, great article. Address these last points I've raised and I'll support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Cool! Eixo 10:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, I think that although the comments above are right, this article, as it said, represents a reliable source of information about one of the most important kings in the history of England. As a student of English language and literature, I should say this issue is complete but some stylistic changes in form and content are adviceable. Try not to include the same verbs refering to similar actions, I'll rather recommend to enrich the prose, think about synonyms and do not mix tenses.--Gustavo86 03:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it. Can you mention any specifics? Eixo 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'll indulge in some nitpicking, although I'm inclined to support. Edward was "naturally more of a soldier than his father". Why "naturally" ? Is "David Bruce" how he is called in English historiography ? David disappears to France, the Scots having been subjugated, only to miraculously reappear in time to be captured at Neville's Cross. Nothing on Wales, where I believe Edward was quite successful and not even a mention of the Statutes of Kilkenny, which were surely of more importance in the long run than the Statute of Labourers. Finally, I seem to recall Joan's death putting a spoke in some of Edward's Spanish plans, but that doesn't seem to be included. All in all pretty good. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:56, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, you raise some valid points: "naturally" is not my word, I agree it's strange, I'll change it back. "David II" is probably better, and that is also the name of the corresponding article. I'll clarify the issue of his return. I don't believe Edward III ever campaigned in Wales, could you be thinking of Edward I? I've mentioned the issues with Ireland, but I'll put in a special mention of the Statutes of Kilkenny. As for the Spanish adventures, I've delibarately left that out. It is mostly the Black Prince's project, and I think it belongs better in an article on him. Hope that makes you happy! Eixo 11:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. -- Stbalbach 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. -- Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Object: It is very good. I loathe the hideous and enormous info box, full of information that should be easily accessible in the first few lines of the lead, and a great deal that should not. Why on earth does it have to say "By the Grace of God, King of England and France and Lord of Ireland" in the info box, at least consider removing that. Apart from that the page is well written informative and good except he was also known as "Edward of Windsor" yet there is no mention of the great castle he completely rebuilt over 24 years of his life see [6], add something about that, consider at least reducing the size of the infobox, does it need the second box below with much the same information, with the successor and predecessor again being repeated in the final box at the foot of the page. This is overkill, change some of this and I will happily change to support. Giano 15:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I concur %100 about the ugly, amateurish (childish) "info boxes". We need a new Wikipedia project that is made up entirely of Info Boxes (Infoboxpedia.org) and remove any actual text or prose for those lacking the attention span to read. Many of our articles are turning into info box graffiti war zones. "What I really think" out of the way, I don't think it's fair to hold a FA hostage over a much bigger problem that can't be solved here, given current "standards", there is no way this article will ever be elected without an IB. -- Stbalbach 00:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Stbalbach is right: the debate over infoboxes does not belong here. There is no way that this article can single-handedly go against the standard for every English monarch article. I will look into the other concern. Eixo 18:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Giano and Stbalbach; and have you considered how narrow it makes the main text at the top, especially for those without a wide monitor? -->

• Object—1a. Needs a prose-audit throughout, for logic, flow, control of the level of detail, and referencing.
  • Second sentence in the lead: "His reign lasted for 50 years, longer than any English monarch since Henry III, and until George III." You're packing two statements into this sentence, but the grammar doesn't work for the second one.
  • "He was responsible for the restoration of royal authority after the disastrous reign of his father, Edward II." Ambiguous: did someone make him responsible? No, so reword—"He restored ..."
  • "He transformed England into the most efficient military force in Europe and can, to a large extent, be credited with the birth of the English nation." England was a country, not a military force. I'm uneasy about the sweeping statement at the end of this sentence.
  • "Edward’s later years, however, were marked by international failure and domestic strife, largely as a result of the king’s inertia and eventual bad health." "The king's" is not a cohesive back-reference; make it just "his".
  • "... his reign oversaw ... the ravaging of the Black Death." Sounds as though it was part of his master-plan. "Development/s" occurs twice in this sentence.
  • "A temperamental man, he was also capable of great clemency. He was, in most ways, a conventional king, and his interests lay mainly in the field of warfare. Highly revered in his own time and for centuries after, Edward III was denounced as an irresponsible adventurer by later Whig historians. This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many achievements." This twists and turns, is vague, possibly POV (certainly unreferenced), and jumbled. What we need here, at the end of the lead, is a more constrained, focused, broad overview of the reign that experts won't find easy to pull holes in. Tony 15:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, please see the project talk page. Eixo 11:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your fixes of my points above; however, a copy-edit is required throughout. Tony 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Erm... no way to know it from this page, but it looks as if this nom was successful (there's a FA star on the article) --Dweller 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gliding

This is a self-nomination. The article has been accepted as a Good Article and has had a successful peer review. JMcC 11:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Notables are not referenced, and section headings need attention per WP:MOS: for example, Some national gliding associations could be National associations and Maximising cross-country speed could be Maximising speed (read guidelines about repeating words in headings). Needs a copyedit; look at this sentence, for example: "In the 1950s in many countries there were a large number of trained pilots, many were also aeronautical engineers, who wanted to continue to fly." Sandy 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All suggestions implemented, including referencing all notable pilots JMcC 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional support As the GA promoter, I am looking at this closely and seeing some of the things that I was alright with for that are not for FA. They're minor ... I've been doing some copy work and found one fact I'd like to see cited. But so far that's all. Daniel Case 03:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contacted Daniel Case who accepts the fact is now cited. He has since done a very useful copyedit. JMcC 23:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

My concerns have been addressed, I now declare my wholehearted support. Daniel Case 03:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just went through a hard copy with a pen, which led to ... yet another copyedit. The prose, I think, is now as smooth as the subject :-). I found several places where citations should be made, and those are marked in the article.

Here are the things I was talking bout where we could "go further".

• "Germany remains the world centre of gliding". The article establishes that Germany is indeed a world center of glider manufacturing, but what of the sport itself? I would like to see more evidence. Are the best pilots predominantly, or significantly, German? Are the most prestigious competitions held there? It would support this point better to say that were it so (and, of course, provide the appropriate citations).

• Is it really necessary to describe cumulus clouds as "the fluffy, cotton-wool type cloud" when you have a picture right there?

• We have some places here where perhaps another article could be created. The On-Line Contest website, for instance (Perhaps, if it does not meet WP:WEB, at least we could have a screenshot here?). And the MacCready theory (Also, is it the same as the "speed to fly theory"? The article makes it seem so, but is not explicit about this).

• OK, that's what I have for now. Daniel Case 22:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply For response see end of this section JMcC 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• object, the article has a few problems, including prose that sounds more like a glider promo manual than wikipedia's NPOV. For example: "all recreational glider pilots enjoy the freedom, the scenic views and the sense of achievement" "Most clubs offer trial lessons to people interested in learning to glide and will accept bookings by phone." Also, the large number of citations is misleading, because entire sections are without a single reference, while lists have cites for every entry. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful comments. I have now added even more references including books that cover the whole subject (there are now 57) to meet your request. The fully cited list was at the request of Sandy. Are there still any remaining specific facts that need to be referenced? Please note that sometimes the reference at the start of the section covers all of it. A promo for gliding that has a long list of hazards is not good advertising, so some attempt has been made at NPOV. I added the Challenges section also for this reason. Are there any other aspects which would add balance? In its defence the article attempts to answer the questions: "why would anyone voluntarily get into a cramped, unpowered aircraft and fly for hours away far from the airfield in turbulent conditions?" and "how do normal people start?". Nevertheless I will tone down the stuff about freedom etc and delete the bookings by phone (I suppose it does sound like a promo). As a general comment, I would appreciate feedback phrased such as "there are problems Y, Z etc but it is x% of the way there". JMcC 22:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support I've had a peripheral interest in this article over a couple of years, but others the work. I've read a couple of books on gliding, and I'm pretty confident this article gives a comprehensive overview of the subject. User:Jmcc150 has done a good job of illustrating and referencing the article, as well as addressing any of the concerns raised in Peer Review and here. All other FA criteria appear to be met and the subject is rather more mainstream than some of the other FA articles in the Sports and Games section. -- Solipsist 15:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Refs adjusted for consistency with WP:FN. I noticed this line: "The first German gliding competition was held at the Wasserkuppe[4] in 1920, organised by Oskar Ursinus." The reference goes to a website about Wasserkuppe that talks about gliding and later competitions, but doesn't seem to mention the "first" one. What fact is this citation supposed to be referencing? If it is merely to acknowledge the Wasserkuppe site, then perhaps it should be in External Links? Gimmetrow 15:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess the reference confirms that competitions were held at Wasserkuppe in 1920. However, I would agree that it doesn't actually verify that these were the first gliding competitions in the world. this link also confirms the 1920 date at Wasserkuppe, and by implication given its context in the narative of gliding history it would be the first competition. Other links more easily confirm that the first international Gliding World Championships were held there in 1937. -- Solipsist 16:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have added another reference to Oskar Ursinus and the first meet in Germany as being in 1920. Ann Welch's book that is also given as a reference cites the Waserkuppe meeting as the first one in the world. I have tried to use on-line references as much as possible, despite my large gliding library. It is much more interesting if other people can also read these references. JMcC 17:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing any facts, just wondering what facts were being referenced. One online reference was a mirror of a wikipedia page, which is not really OK with WP:RS. There is nothing wrong with using book references; if you simply want to make an online source accessible for further reading, it can be placed in external links. Some references point to personal sites; those might be more appropriate as external links too. Gimmetrow 17:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Book reference Ann Welch's book (page 51) added to replace previous reference. Sorry I hadn't noticed the previous reference was a Wikipedia mirror. The last suggestion seemed optional so I will leave the other references as they are. JMcC 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply All comments have now been answered by adjustments to the article. There are now 76 references. (A requested illustration of the On-Line Contest would not be visually attractive since it is merely a table of participants.) This article has now moved a long way down the list of FAC and so may not get the attention is now deserves. However all comments are still welcome. JMcC 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of my last batch of issues have been addressed and it is likely the article will need only some copyediting work to smooth the edges of the newly-introduced material.

However, I checked the image licensing out, and Image:Blanik 3 a.jpg needs its license updated as the current tag is a deprecation notice for a previous "permission with no commercial use". Check with the copyright holder and see if a no-rights-reserved version, like the other images in the article, is possible. Daniel Case 01:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply Rather than wait for information that would allow me to improve the old copyright tag, I have loaded a new (and better) image without any copyright problems. JMcC 20:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- This is an excellent article, well-deserving of community endorsement. --ScienceApologist 23:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- A well researched and organized article about a wonderful sport. If more people knew of it larger numbers might enjoy it. Wikipedia is in a position to better bring it to the public's attention. Richard Weil 02:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Richard Weil

• Object. Something needs to be done with lists and "see also"s at the end of the article. They spoil the fun. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply I have sought clarification of this vague comment. JMcC 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have since contacted Ghirla who wished to remove the lists in the 'See also' section. Since these provide useful information, rather than 'fun', I have left them untouched. JMcC 15:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

List has now been deleted following another request. See below. JMcC 23:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I explained my rationale on the nominator's talk page. Now that the listcruft was eliminated, I see no reason for opposing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object. The article has improved, but I agree with Ghirla about the listiness. A See also list of links to articles of people who glide tells us nothing about the significance of those people as gliders. That See also list needs to be converted to some interesting prose, giving us something worth knowing about the participants and the activity. Hazards and Challenges to the Gliding Movement need to be converted to brilliant and compelling prose; Wiki isn't a how-to manual, it's an encyclopedia. There are places in the prose where the relevance of the text isn't clear: "On rare occasions glider pilots have been able to use a technique called 'dynamic soaring', where a glider can be made to gain kinetic energy by repeatedly crossing the boundary between air masses of different horizontal velocity." Can be made to gain? What is the "rare occasions" about, and why is it relevant? Sandy 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Much better, but I'm wondering why you didn't put the notable pilots into a separate article, and include that article (as well as the list of associations) under a See also section? Sandy 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There is now a see also section with links to national associations and to a new article called Famous glider pilots. Thank you, Sandy, for your invaluable input and now your support. JMcC 13:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • "Notable" glider pilots would be more encyclopedic :-) Sandy 13:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The article is now called List of notable glider pilots JMcC 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

• I agree that the section on hazards is a 'how-to'. It was added by someone else and I was over-cautious about removing their information. I have long wanted an excuse to reduce it and have now done so with great pleasure. I hope you now think that it reads better. The section on challenges seems to read OK to me and could not be classified as a 'how-to'.
• In my opinion, a list of famous people who happen to be or have been glider pilots is interesting. For example the fact that a man who has been a test-pilot and has landed on the moon now gets his satisfaction from flying unpowered aircraft is significant, even if he is not the current world champion. A German fighter ace or the apparently vacuous Barbara Cartland are also to my mind surprising. If this is all that stops it becoming a featured article, it is an easy amendment to zap the list. However the list is a minor aspect, and it is the opinion of two experienced Wikipedians that it detracts from the article. I have therefore deleted it. (Incidentally the aircraft are 'gliders' and the people who fly them are called 'pilots'.)
• A new article on National gliding associations has been created and the list removed
• The list in related sports has been transformed into a paragraph with additional information
• The use of dynamic lift is what keeps albatrosses aloft without flapping their wings and some explanation is needed why gliders usually can't fly that way. It has been possible for gliders to soar dynamically once or twice, but since you object to the phrase 'on rare occasions', I have removed it. I have also simplified the admittedly clumsy English by removing three words from 'can be made to gain'.
• The comments by this objector has again been answered but as always I am willing to discuss further changes. The word Asymptote springs to mind. JMcC 19:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC) and 07:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John W. Johnston

My first self-nomination. I believe it meets the criteria, and is an interesting biography of a Virginia Senator after Reconstruction. All comments welcome! plange 06:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: It has received a GA rating and undergone several peer reviews... --plange 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Support. I'm unsure about the red links, I think the "Marriage and children" section lets the article down a bit. I can see a lot of effort has gone into the article, so I'm supporting it anyway. — Wackymacs 11:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I removed the red links and the extra children that were non-notable. --plange 14:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose: The article is not comprehensive enough. It goes into great detail about the two incidents - the former slave and the Arlington cemetary thing - and thus 2/3 of the article is on the period from 1865-1870. His life before the Senate is especially too brief. It just tells what jobs he held. And the layout is underwhelming - three short sections followed by one big long one. I don't think the list of his children is necessary either. Saying he had twelve children, and commenting on any notableones, should be enough. --DaveOinSF 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I already removed the extra children. On the pre-Senate info, unfortunately there is no published information. I have a manuscript that does, but it's not published and so cannot use. --plange 15:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, without a more comprehensive discussion of his life and career, I don't think I can support FA status then. Of particular interest would be some more detail about his role in the Confederacy, since the crux of the article is that, despite that history, he was allowed in the Senate anyway. I understand your frustration on the availability of sources. Is the manuscript you have citeable, even though it is not widely available?--DaveOinSF 18:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• From what I understand, I'm not allowed to post it to a website so that I can cite it. I'm trying to see if I can get the Washington County Historical Society to publish it in one of their journals, but that's probably not something that can happen in the near future. If I found a historical website for Virginia and they post it, can that work? --plange 18:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, can you cite it as a manuscript and say it is available from the Washington County Historical Society? Are you not allowed to comment on it in any way, or is it simply a case that you can't get a copy of it onto the the web? If it's just the latter, don't worry about it. Not all references need to be on the internet.--DaveOinSF 19:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have no problem posting it to a website, since I'm a web programmer and even have a family history site this can be posted on, but I thought that didn't qualify under the guidelines at WP:V... --plange 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I guess I'm a bit confused as to what this manuscript is exactly...can you explain a bit more?--DaveOinSF 21:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's Johnston's memoirs actually, but unlike the one I source in the article which resides at Duke, this one isn't deposited anywhere, so the only way to make it publicly accessible is for me to post it on the web, but was under the impression a family history website would not meet the reliable source clause at WP:V, but I just re-read it and since it's written by the person the article is about, perhaps it is okay. Let me check over at WP:V --plange 21:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've made some suggestions there. The immediate suggestion would be: put the data from the MS on the Talk page, and see if there are other sources for the facts. Septentrionalis 23:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• This sounds like a wonderful source. I would suggest writing your article using this MS as a source. Of course you should try to find other sources as well, for all aspects of his life. I don't know if you would need to transcribe the one you have onto the web at all. Cannot you just cite it as printed material that you have referenced, and indicate where it is housed?--DaveOinSF 23:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It is a great resource, but the problem is it's not housed anywhere except my personal library, so doesn't qualify under WP:V -- I'll need to get it published I guess :-) --plange 23:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is very good but I agree that the layout is not satisfactory. The last section is biiiiiig. Why don't you divide it and reorganize it according to its topics (for instance, helping the slaves, Texas and Pacific Railway etc.)? In this way, you might be able to look better in your material and add more information. I would also welcome more details and more sources. Almost half inline citations come from "Johnston, Reminiscences of Thirteen Years in the Senate".--Yannismarou 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've broken up the long text into several subheadings... --plange 00:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• The article is very good. Now, the layout is also better. I donot believe that the problem with one source is enough to prevail the article from becoming FA. After a serious thought, I've decided to support the article.--Yannismarou 17:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the lead is not a good summary of the content of article, see WP:LEAD for pointers.--Peta 02:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Better? I've expanded to 3 paragraphs, hitting the main parts of his senate career, and clarified some things --plange 02:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks, support. --Peta 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Not an oppose because I just took a look at the lead, but a "hold-on". There was a fairly obvious typo in the second para (because --> because of) which makes me wonder how full the copy-editing has been. Further, the use of "had been" seems to demand an "until", so it still doesn't read right.

• In the last paragraph we have: "He was caught in the middle during the debate over the Arlington Memorial. The initial proposal was distasteful to Johnston, yet the ensuing debate caused him to want to defend the memory of Robert E. Lee. The need to stay quiet however, for the sake of the Democratic Party, won out." I read these three sentences and I had no idea what the debate was about. You don't have to have clauses unpacking everything in the lead, but if you start to unpack something you're only going to confuse the reader by not finishing the job. "The initial proposal was distasteful" is a throwaway line if we don't know what the initial proposal was. I would actually suggest cutting the mention to a single sentence noting what the debate was and his ambivalence.

• I realize I'm arriving at this one late in the game. I'll try and look more closely at the body later. Marskell 14:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Good points! I added a couple of words to the third paragraph in an attempt to clarify what the proposal was - does that work? --plange 19:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad Marskell finally mentioned that: I've been looking at that missing "of" in the lead for days, thinking it was only me, and there was a problem with my eyesight or my command of grammar :-) I couldn't figure why no one had mentioned it, so thought I was missing something. Please let me know when ce is finished, and I will have a look. Sandy 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I'm glad he caught that-- it was a copyedit someone did to the lead while it was up here for FAC and I didn't catch it :-P --plange 00:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Raul appears to have passed this over without passing or failing, which is for the best. There's still significant prose work needed. There's too much repetition between clauses and phrases. Something I changed today, for instance: "Because Johnston was up for re-election by the legislature, his seat was vulnerable if Scott succeeded in influencing the legislature..." I'm also concerned about non-summary style—the story of the slave, for instance, which was noted by another reviewer. Marskell 16:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on the prose, I noticed you did some changes too. The only thing I'm puzzled on is the non-summary style for the slave story, since I missed where another reviewer said it was non-summary, unless you mean above where it says it goes into too much detail? Since that's how he was able to serve in the Senate, I thought it was important to relate? --plange 17:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's important to relate, but I'm not sure at this length. Do we need all those details of Peter's life for instance? Marskell 16:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you trimmed it some, thanks! --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"When Thomas C. McCreery (D) of Kentucky introduced a resolution to investigate the ownership of Arlington and possibly returning it to Mrs. Robert E. Lee, fix up the premises, return any Washington relics discovered, and whether a suitable location nearby existed to remove the dead buried there, the resolution brought down a firestorm of objections". This is a pretty awful run-on sentence, but more alarmingly there is no date mentioned. The entire section fails to date any of the commentary or events! I went to the Arlington Memorial and can't figure it out. Marskell 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I found the date in the Senate Journal and added it, and re-did sentence. Is it better? --plange 00:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am a support, pending a bit more work from Plange. I made a pretty substantial edit to this tonight, including re-working the TOC; I hope this is more sensible to you. There are three fact requests (including two on Funder v Readjuster). The conclusion had simply been tacked onto the Texas railroad bit, so I broke out some sections. "Later years" is now two sentences and has an expand tag. Can you throw in a bit extra? His wife lived until X, a statue was erected, etc. With this stuff done I think this is within criteria; were it to go to the main page, I'd hope for another copyedit (ideally, by someone new).

Kudos again on your work. Marskell 21:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think the reorganization makes more sense. I'm working on getting the rest of the cites you requested... Some books are not here at the office. On the last cite, am assuming you want something regarding that being an outspoken Funder cost him his seat, not that he lost his seat? Am in a weird position here, as I just realized in looking through my notes that that's actually citable by something I wrote (see pg 119 here: http://cssvirginia.org/vacsn/base/atrigg.pdf) which references that same document mentioned above that I cannot cite directly since it's not published, but which I could when writing my Master's Thesis. The Master's thesis is published though (copies available at Georgia State Univ. as well as having been placed on the cssvirginia.org site). So am I allowed to use my own thesis as a source? --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I thought there might be confusion above. I didn't go to the actual Arlington Memorial, but rather our page on the topic :). Marskell 22:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I figured that's what you meant :-) BTW, thanks for all your hard work on this article!! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment The 'citations needed' all should be resolved first. Thanks Hmains 04:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Working on these, Marskell added these today (see above), so will get those rectified post-haste! --plange 05:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you should not cite your thesis because a) Master's theses are not up to snuff in terms of WP:V; b) it would constitute debuting original research.

Let's think this through. Can you source:

• "William Mahone was chosen as head of the Readjusters; his party gained control of the state legislature"; and
• Johnston "was replaced in 1883 for prominent Readjuster Harrison H. Riddleberger."

Source those and let the facts speak for themselves. "[Johnston was replaced] because Johnston was an outspoken 'Funder,'" is the OR inference and should be dropped (obvious as it seems). Marskell 11:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, that's definitely do-able-- am rather embarrassed that I had let slip some OR in here --plange 17:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Why is there an "expand this section" notice in the article? Is it going to be expanded before the outcome of this nomination is decided? Tony 05:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I also noticed that and I was a bit surprised! Who added this template and when? And something else I want to ask: Are all the references used in "Notes"? If not those which are not used should be either deleted either transferred to a new section, named "Further reading".--Yannismarou 07:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Read above; the template is explained in my "support, pending" comment and plange's subsequent reply. Marskell 11:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I plan on expanding this per Marskell's request. Also, all references are used in Notes, I didn't add any that weren't in Notes... --plange 16:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support ("pending" is struck above). Concerns have been sufficiently addressed. This is a fine short bio, IMO. I'll look at the wording some more and Plange can add some a few more sources, but I trust his work so far and think this is within criteria. Marskell 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, well organized, comprehensive. Tuf-Kat 01:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian Revolution of 1956

October 23 will mark the 50th anniversary of one of the bravest acts of the 20th century - when Hungary rose up to free itself from Soviet occupation. The article has recently been greatly improved; it was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive feature, was peer reviewed by WP:MilHist (the rating predates its revisions), and is now undergoing general peer review. Hungarian Revolution of 1956 is now a thoroughly-referenced and organised work we feel worthy of FA status. Those who have worked hard to improve this article warmly invite you to browse it, make improvements and leave comments which will be attended to quickly. Istvan 19:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• The first sentence makes me wonder if this is NPOV. Communist dictatorship?, the hated State Police? These are quite POV words... - Tutmosis 20:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Grrr, this article doesn't seem stable. I posted the above 2 seconds after it was changed. - Tutmosis 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope more changes are coming because the article uses a lot of strong words: hated, destroy, repressio creating explosive discontent. Statements like this with no source: "Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk.". Definetely needs some neutral eye to copyedit it. I've only begun reading the article too. - Tutmosis 20:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This language is referenced from decidedly neutral sources, e.g. the UN report of 1957. The text has been adjusted to remove unreferenced assertions.Istvan 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And another thing...THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. We must use "strong words" to refer to terrible times. K. Lastochka 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• strong support I proudly support this article for FA. It has vastly improved from where it was a month or so ago and is now a clear, well-written and informative article. I verify that I have been actively involved in the editing process for the last few weeks, ever since it was put up for AID. Talpra magyar, hí a haza! K. Lastochka 20:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• support - it has become great filled with pictures and references, I think it is an aarticle that Wikipedia can be proud of (being the #1 hit on Google for the Revolution), also I feel that the POV issues have been worked out even with such a great emotional involvement (that I can't condemn) of some of the editors --Dami 20:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- I am curious about the images copyrighted to the American Hungarian Federation. How is it that these photos, which were taken during the uprising, came under the ownership of the AHF? And where is it written that they may be re-used for any purpose? Andrew Levine 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, please pardon my lack of legal expertise but here goes - the AHF homepage [7] notes: "The American Hungarian Federation is sponsoring the 1956 Portal to provide a resource for Hungarian American organizations across the nation to highlight and promote their 1956 Hungarian Revolution commemoration activities. The 1956 Portal serves as a central information resource for 1956 as our community prepares for this important milestone." There is intent but not restriction, and the photo page lists the copyrights as belonging to the AHF (2005) and the various sources (1956 Institute, a couple of private contributors) so there is a path leading from the original owners through the AHF who is sponsoring the media for public use. Istvan 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• I just spoke with someone at the National Headquarters of the American Hungarian Foundation who assured me that all images they are using on their "1956 Hungarian Revolution Portal" are either public domain or are images where permission has been given for reuse with correct attribution. However, he was at a loss as to how I might prove that to anyone else. He said there is a board meeting tonight, and the subject will be brought up to see what documentation can be provided. I guess we have to wait a few days to find out.--Paul 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good work! I never thought to get any of the AHF people on the phone. :) K. Lastochka 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• support—it's a well-written article that covers not only the what but also the why. It gives good references to the reader and is generally a good source of information for anybody. chery 20:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment -- Although I'd like to support this, I think it's being presented in a somewhat sensationalized, but certainly POV fashion. With this issue, it should be easy enough for readers to make up their own minds about right and wrong without being "hit over the head" by an encyclopedia entry. As it stands, I won't support or object. -- TheMightyQuill 23:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mighty Quill, can you please give us some examples of how exactly we're being "sensational" and POV? K. Lastochka 00:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- I think the POV comments have been cleaned up nicely. Thanks everyone. Though maybe you could track down a better picture of Kadar? TheMightyQuill 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- This article is comprehensive without excessive detail, contains good use of both period references (including translations of source material) and more recent works, is sparingly illustrated with topical images, is well wiki-linked, and adds a tone to the narrative that is appropriate to the events described, but avoiding a POV attitude that might obscure the facts. A reviewer here would be well-served by reading some of the references linked to this article to answer whether the writing is balanced and fair. Ryanjo 20:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment / Support I believe I can be persuaded to support this article for FA, but currently, its claims are not sufficiently referenced. I have started going through the article placing "citation needed" tags at obvious places, as well as a few comments where greater clarity is needed. With work, this can be FA quality, but I don't believe it is there yet. I'll help as I have the time. When the "citation needed" tags are worked out, I'll reevalute my support.--Paul 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Article has doubled the number of cites since my original comment was posted, and currently - as far as I can tell - makes no claims that are not backed up with a reference. It is well-written, comprehensive, verifiable, factually accurate, and after considerable recent effort, it is neutral - perhaps to the point of anemia. It conforms to WP:MOS, it has a concise series of headings, it has appropriate pictures (but I'd support it without those), and the current editors now swear they are done improving it so it will be stable (it has never been afflicted with reversion wars). It borders on being a little too long, but with its content and extensive footnotes, it is undoubtedly the very best on-line refernce to this event, and anyone who studies the article will learn a great deal. I must confess that I have been active in editing the article since it was selected for Article Improvement a scant three weeks ago.--Paul 15:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, the POV is just too strong, and the variety of views about the topic are not really represented. There are also a number of "citation needed" markers, but that is very much secondary. Everyking 01:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Everyking, remarking on the "citation needed" markers isn't really fair, as I added those just now, as part of my comment on current quality. I am certain that editors will clean up the needed references in a day or two. Regarding "variety of views about the topic not being really represented," can you give an example or two to help? Thanks.--Paul 01:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• All of the "citation needed" markers have been cleaned up.--Paul 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. too much pov: "Hungary became a communist state under the dictatorship of Mátyás Rákosi.", "Spark and ignition". Also writing not good at all- "Hungary was dependent on the Soviet Union through the COMECON" (please elaborate), "mood changed from demonstration to protest", "Repeated calls for Imre Nagy eventually summoned the former minister" - get someone to copyedit--ppm 04:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Spark and ignition" is gone; plus all of these: "Hungary was dependent on the Soviet Union through the COMECON", "mood changed from demonstration to protest", "Repeated calls for Imre Nagy eventually summoned the former minister" have been removed or rewritten.--Paul 22:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

What is going on here? Rákosi WAS a dictator, can't we call his regime a dictatorship without being slapped as POV?? Do we HAVE to tell the story of our desparate cry for freedom in a dry, bland, politically-correct academic style? The streets of Budapest were red with blood in 56, why can blood not flow through the veins of this article? K. Lastochka 04:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The content of your article should make it easy for the reader do deduct that he was a dictator. Perfectly fine would be sentences like "The US news in a report in 19XX referred to him as a petty tyrant". Just don't go and declare him as a dictator. that IS pov.--ppm 18:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse me for being slightly incredulous, but the point is still confusing. Would labeling Franco, Stalin, or Hitler as dictators also be inadmissible Point-Of-View? If so, someone has some serious editing to do. If not, what's the difference?--Paul 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is little doubt that Rákosi was a dictator. U.S News & World Report calls him a "Little Stalin" and a "petty tyrant." The Wikipedia article on him states: "At this point, Rákosi dropped all pretense of democratic government, and Hungary became an outright Communist dictatorship." Given an hour or two in a good library, I could provide a stack of references agreeing with this assessment. Stalin was a dictator, Franco was a dictator, and Rákosi was a dictator. It is not a POV to state the truth. There may be some POV statements in this article that cannot be backed up with strong references, but this is not one of them. Secondly, how does "Spark and ignition" qualify as POV? The state police fired into an unarmed crowd and things got out of hand. If that isn't a spark and ignition, what is it? Would you please suggest an alternative non-POV wording?--Paul 05:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The dictator question is one of the finer points of NPOV semantics; the neutrality issue goes much deeper than that. Where is the other side of the story? I personally think Rakosi was a dictator, and while I'd rather not use the word I can live with it; the bigger problem is the general hostile approach and the narrow perspective that's being used. Everyking 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyking, can you give an example of what you mean by "other side of the story?" As another editor points out, there is an extensive documented section detailing Soviet concerns in the affair including the following:

*Hungarian neutrality and withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact represented a threat to the Soviet defensive and ideological buffer zone of satellite nations.^[2] Soviet international relations in central Europe were not only dictated by a desire for empire, but by a fear of invasion from the West. These fears were deeply ingrained in Soviet foreign policy, reaching back to the Russian Civil War and the Polish-Soviet War in the 1920s. However, it was the Operation Barbarossa in 1941, when the Hungarian state was an ally during the German invasion of the Soviet Union, that cemented the Soviet concept of a necessary defensive buffer of allied states in central Europe.

-Paul 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it necessary to use the word "dictator" here in order to get across the meaning? It is better, and much more descriptive, to say (as the article does) "The Security Police (ÁVH) began a series of purges in which dissidents were denounced as 'Titoists' or 'western agents', and forced to confess in show trials. Thousands of Hungarians were arrested, tortured, tried, and imprisoned in concentration camps or were executed, including ÁVH founder László Rajk." That gets across the idea much better than calling his rule a "dictatorship," which is an overused and not-very-descriptive term. Andrew Levine 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - with a lot of work the article has become great, it meets FA criteria. Congrat! NCurse _work 05:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment from nominator: POV/NPOV is valid concern especially in an article about a revolution; I would invite you to read the references and entertain the possibility that this language, which is almost always POV, is in fact spot-on accurate for Hungary in 1956. Please see the Talk page for an elaboration. Thank you for your attention and honest evaluations. Istvan 05:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support - support as long as the citation needed tags are replaced with references. The article is comprehensive, well-formatted, well-structured and gives a good snapshot of the event. Ronline ✉ 06:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• All of the "citation needed" markers have been cleaned up.--Paul 17:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support :) Ronline ✉ 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The tone fits the topic. This article is about a revolution, not a species of bacteria.
  • An editor changed "hated" secret police to "thoroughly-despised". I don't think the language is as precise, but its softer, so maybe politically correct.
  • It was suggested to change "dictatorship" to "regime". Is that how our encyclopedia defines a non-elected oligarchy with internal concentration camps? Is the reader of this article informed by that imprecise terminology?
  • The other side of the story is there: one of the largest subsections of the article (Soviet political response) details the internal debate and motivation of the Soviet Politburo, with references to primary sources.
  • If the facts are wrong, let's fix them. But let's end up with a precise and truthful description. Ryanjo 11:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• support, would be nice to get it featured before the anniversary. – Alensha ^talk 14:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• support, pretty comprehensive, referenced on the requested places, tone is fine, deserves to be featured. - Serinde 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• More comments the article has the material and overall organization for an FA, but some real cleanup is necessary. The word Hungay doesn't appear until the 2nd para, and then it's not wikilinked. Towards the end of lead "animosities still burn unresolved." why this burning imagery? "animosities still remain unresolved" is much more encyclopedic. Serious copyedit needed.--ppm 18:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response: The opening paragraphs have been rewritten to include Hungary in the first sentence (wikified). The burning imagery is gone, and the reference to dictatorship has been removed.--Paul 03:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hey shoot me down if I'm wrong, but don't featured articles have to have rationales for the images? I didn't see any.--Clyde Miller 19:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hopefuly I'm not misleading you or mistaken, but if you read above you see that they claim the pictures are public domain (I think we have done our due dilignece on our part), plus it is believed (acompanying the abovementioned phonecall) that this gives us permission: (highligting by me)

The American Hungarian Federation is sponsoring the 1956 Portal to provide a resource for Hungarian American organizations across the nation to highlight and promote their 1956 Hungarian Revolution commemoration activities.

--Dami 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I think that the very title of the article is misleading. This was more of an "attempted revolution" as "revolutions" tend to be successful, don't they? Then again, I'm not a historian, I'm a scientist. Still, I'd like to see a different title. --ScienceApologist 19:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  This event has always been called either “revolution” or “counterrevolution”, but never “attempted revolution”. It would be nonsense to give it an other name. chery 20:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Common parlance is "Revolution." "1956 Hungarian Revolution" returns 80,000+ Google hits. "1956 Hungarian Uprising" returns 16,000+, while "1956 Hungarian Revolt" returns 720 hits. "Revolution" may not be the best word, but it is the one in common use.--Paul 20:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• All the references for the article call this event either Hungarian Revolution or Revolt. Ryanjo 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• "Revolt" as a term seems more in-line with what actually happened. I understand that it is our duty to be verifiable and that we just report what others say, but given the overly postivistic claims of the nominator and other supporters of the FAC toward this event, I am hesitant to say that the title is the best that Wikipedia can do given its WP:NPOV. After all, the Philippine-American War is not called the Philippine Revolution of 1899-1913. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• The "Philippine-American War" is the common name of the event. The "Philippine Revolution" is rare. "1956 Hungarian Revolt" is quite uncommon, while "1956 Hungarian Revolution" is the common usage. It isn't up to us to blaze new scholarly naming conventions. After all, the English horn, is neither English, nor a horn, but the Wikipedia entry goes along with the common usage, and unfortunately that is what is needed here also.--Paul 23:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Nope, sorry, not buying it. Hungarian Uprising gets 500,000 hits on google while Hungarian Revolution gets 3 million and change. That's not enough to convince me that Hungarian Revolution is that much more popular to contravene WP:NPOV concerns. I doubt there are people who want to get into controversial arguments over English horns (though I have been surprised in the past), but I'm willing to wager that there are historians out there who would not agree that calling this the "Hungarian Revolution" is neutral. --ScienceApologist 23:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This may help throw light on the issue - There have been at least three major revolutions/uprisings/revolts/insurrections in Hungarian history (incl. 1848) - you must add "1956" to your Google search to glean out hits from this one only. And you are right that there are indeed historians who use the term uprising, David Irving is one, but this is clearly the minority. "Revolution" is English convention and is also direct translation from the Hungarian convention.Istvan 00:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It does help. But why is discussion of this not in the article? It would have helped explain why the article is titled the way it is. Remember, we report at Wikipedia, so let's report the name of the event with appropriate citations. --ScienceApologist 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would someone please enlighten me as to how exactly the word "revolution" is POV? If you want to be incredibly fussy I suppose "uprising" is a bit more accurate, but how on Earth is the word "revolution" biased towards one POV??? K. Lastochka 00:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term "revolution" has a lot of connotations. In particular, its etymological roots imply that there is some sort of change ("revolving") that happened as a result of the revolution. In this case, it doesn't seem like "change" occurred in the sense that the people who were leading the "revolution" would have liked. What's more, there is a sense to the term "revolution" that carries connotations of "success". That's where we are treading a narrow POV line. The Hungarian Revolution might hardly be called successful in most superficial analyses. However, there are perspectives where we might say it was successful (or maybe a harbinger of future success). However, this is only one perspective and my feeling is by naming the article "revolution" you are (perhaps unwittingly) endorsing this perspective. --ScienceApologist 00:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that it might be somewhat inaccurate. But believe me, we KNOW the "revolution" was not successful. But is slight inaccuracy "POV"? It is my understanding that on Wikipedia, POV means an unfair bias towards one perspective/opinion. If we called the article "Glorious Uprising of Fearless Hungarian Freedom Fighters against Bloodthirsty Soviet Tyrants, 1956" THAT would be POV. "Revolution" vs. "Uprising" is just splitting irrelevant hairs. K. Lastochka 00:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The event was a revolution, in that it's goals were revolutionary. It did intend a clean break with the zeitgeist. It is both unfortunate and true that it was short-lived, but it seemed successful on October 28th, and its short duration doesn't make it any less a revolution. Unfortunately, the other choices don't solve the supposed POV problem. "Uprising" can be just as POV, possibly implying an illegal rebellion against legitimate authority. “Revolt” is similarly weighted down with unfortunate connotations. In this case, where any of the alternatives can be just as plausibly be described as “POV,” don't you think the best course is to go with common usage? POV is much more suspect when you depart from the norm.--Paul 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"unfortunate connotations" indeed..."Comrade General! The Hungarians are revolting!" :) LOL....anyways, in all seriousness, I agree. Revolution is just as good--or better--as anything. K. Lastochka 00:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, I've got a solution...we can still call it a revolution--it's just that we'll be referring to the overthrow of the Nagy government by Janos Kadar in November! His government lasted until 1989. OK, everyone is happy now? Next comment? Ryanjo 01:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• I will support this nomination if we include some explanation of why it's called such a thing in the text. --ScienceApologist 11:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Dear S.A. - Please see the recent inclusion of explanation for the term "revolution" (referenced) I believe it is now a better page. Istvan 15:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• While I appreciate the reference, I'm not sure that this totally resolves the issue. Princeton University WordNet is an interesting source, but since there are other terms that describe this event, we should explain WHY it is generally considered a "revolution" while other "uprisings" (e.g. Warsaw Ghetto in WWII) are not. --ScienceApologist 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Dear S.A. - Please see the revised note and identification in the text "Revolt turned to Revolution" passage to identify the precise moment at which the uprising became a revolution, albeit short-lived. WordNet was chosen as it powers Websters online (and OED online is a pay site). I hope this clears the issue for you.Istvan 07:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I checked the reviesed note and identification in the text. Unfortunately I still think the issue remains. What is stated in the text is that the "revolt turned into a revolution", but this is a really artificial demarcation. The citation for this point was to a UN document that stated that there were "Revolutionary committees" which could be taken to mean that the Hungarians believed they were going through a revolution. However, the article isn't written in this way: it is states as bald fact that the revolt became a revolution without nuance or the critical eye of historicity. I find this kind of treatment to be really shoddy. What you can do to improve this is explain, using sources, why the Hungarians and historians who called it a revolution called it a revolution even though it had traits that were different from other events that are called "revolutions" while it shares similarities to events that are not called revolutions (in particular, focusing on the fact that this revolution was unsuccessful). I cannot find another event that was so "short-lived" that was called a "revolution". Most "revolutions" last longer than a few months. Perhaps you can point me to some? --ScienceApologist 18:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please recheck the reference, which is precisely to page 22, paragraph 65 of the UN document; it records the point that the Government fell - as Hegedũs and Gerõ fled the country and makes no mention of revolutionary committees. This is revolution by definition, therefore historians may not be prevented from using the term revolution. Istvan 19:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, the goverment fell, but that's not the definition of a revolution otherwise a coup d'etat would be a type of revolution. --ScienceApologist 13:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Er...isn't it? We're not worrying about the incredibly precise academic definition of the word, we named the article according to common accepted parlance. NEXT ISSUE?K. Lastochka 13:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• As would "putsch" - The difference is one of cause: "revolution" is effected by an uprising of the many, whereas "coup d'etat" and "putsch" allow (even imply) government change by the actions of a few. I believe it should be clear that, by both strict definition and common usage, the 1956 event may be correctly labeled a "revolution". (and remember - even its opponents were quick to label it "counterrevolution".)

Sounds good to me. So why isn't this discussed in the article? --ScienceApologist 23:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Okay, I'll guess. Because it isn't an article about the definition of "Revolution"?--Paul 23:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• If we used nonstandard reference to the event (e.g. "uprising") then an explicit defense of this would certainly be required in the text. As it stands, the footnote (currently #3) summarises the above exchange (rewritten to include the other points you have raised) and is tagged to the first use of "Revolution". Istvan 09:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• I suppose having it in the footnote is better than not having it at all. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of including this. I might, however, suggest than instead of relegating this to a footnote, you find a way to incorporate the information in the article. Then you won't need to footnote the article title! As such, I no longer object to this article being featured. --ScienceApologist 15:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unfortunately, POV issues remain. Rákosi does not conform to our definitions of dictator and dictatorship. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can everybody accusing us of POV kindly provide EXAMPLES of our so-called bias, not just accusations?! K. Lastochka 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support KL on that: I do think that oppose vote without specific objections should not be counted.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question: there has been a lot of debate about using the word "dictator"/"dictatorship" to refer to the Communist/ Rákosi government. Would replacing "dictatorship" with "authoritarian government" be better? K. Lastochka 15:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think "totalitarian government" would be more accurate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I thought the article was POV earlier, but not because of the word dictatorship. I had problems with using the term "dictatorship of the proletariate" which is debatable. If Stalin was a dictator (and his article says he is) then Rákosi undoubtedly was too. - TheMightyQuill 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Can benefit from more inline citations (despite the current 70 or so, there are still unreferenced sentences), and more ilinks (even red - I am sure MEFESZ or Southern Group of Forces are notable.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I do think that support vote without specific commendations should not be counted. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates: "If you oppose a nomination, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the FA Director may ignore it. " So if you do not specify why you think the article is POV in order to change or to reference the objected material your objection will most probably be not counted. - Serinde 07:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • First of all, I did specify what needs to be changed. Secondly, unsubstantiated support votes is the primary reason why many FAs are so weak. Much voting happens along the national lines (Piotrus is an expert on how this is done). A familiar result is FAs with NPOV tags constantly stuck to them: Polish-Soviet War is an instructive example. If the votes by an uninvolved editor are discarded and he is subjected to attacks, I will not bother to visit WP:FAC anymore. As for the FA director, since I saw him engage in unexplained removal of valid tags from his own articles, I will not hold my breath for his judgement. This is my last posting on this page. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, when you first posted you didn't say that about Rakosi not really being a dictator. (!) What, exactly, is your definition of "dictator"? K. Lastochka 14:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• support - This article is now the most comprehensive illustrated online reference, and among nonillustrated sources, second only to the 268 page 1957 UN Security Council report [8] itself. POV and accuracy are in (very) fine balance (see talk). This article not only meets FA requirements but is also an excellent example of the strength of Wikipedia. I verify that I nominated this article and have edited it extensively. Istvan 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• support With the sole reservation that I would like to see more citations. I know there are over 50 now, (I quit counting at 50!) but because of the POV/NPOV issues here, I would like to see virtually every sentence cited. I think at some point we have to speak the truth, and the truth was this Hungarian Revolution of 1956 was a shining moment in history for those courageous enough to stand up and defy the Soviets. This is a powerful, well-written, article that I can support. old windy bear 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

*response The article has more than double triple the number of reference it had when nominated only a few days ago, and now has 107 126 cites from 96 109 references. It isn't every sentence, but averages out to more than two cites per paragraph.--Paul 17:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great article.UberCryxic 19:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• comment This is a very good article, which has clearly been the subject of a lot of work, but the writing doesn't really flow and I am not sure it justifies its length. A purely subjective complaint, but that's what I see. It also seems like many of the facts are presented in a vacuum, to the point of being useless, I'd like to see more relating of things to each other or explanations of the importance. For example "By 1952, disposable real incomes sank to two-thirds of their 1938 levels; whereas in 1949, this figure had been 90 per cent." This may be verifyiable and cite-able, but it makes very little sense as presented. Why do I care? What does this statistic really mean? I'm also puzzled that there is no mention of Prague Spring and other similar movements of the era. I realize Hungary was first, but Hungary was not in a vacuum. Even placing the Cold War navigation block at the bottom of the page would go a long way towards wrapping this important event in a bit more context.

• comment response Good points! 1) I'll add something about the Prague Spring in the aftermath. As to context, the Prague Spring was twelve years later, a more contemporaneous reference is the liberialization in Poland in 1956, which was partially causitive in the Hungarian matter, and this is mentioned. (It is interesting that the Prague Spring article fails to mention the Hungarian Revolution!) 2) The point of the the economics quote is to show that the Hungarian economy was recovering after the war, but after the imposition of the communist government and collectivization, it regressed. This was a source of discontent among the people. It is an important point. I'll see if I can re-write that section in order to make it more clear. 3) The Mil-Hist peer review suggested replacing the Cold War navaigation block with the Cold War portal link to reduce the size of the article. This was done.--Paul 23:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Looking over the article's interwiki links, it appears that most of the non-English language Wikipedia articles on this topic do not use the term "Revolution".

German: Uprising French: Insurrection Spanish: Revolution Italian: Revolution Dutch: Insurrection Korean: Revolt Swedish: Revolt Russian: Uprising Polish: Revolt

More food for thought. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, in Polish it is actually "Uprising", unless my knowledge of Slavic languages has suddenly failed me. But second of all, it is irrelevant what it is called in Polish, Russian, Italian, etc., this is an English language article and we use English common usage. The US Department of State calls it a revolution. The British Foreign Office calls it a revolution. And in the only foreign language relevant to the titling of this article, Hungarian, the word is "forradalom" which translates as "revolution." K. Lastochka 18:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was to compare how the other Wikipedias handle this issue of POV in their article naming. In that sense, Hungarian is not the only language that matters- at least 11 other Wikipedias have had deal with this issue. Lastochka, I completely agree that we should use the most common English language term. But in terms of POV, comparison can only be enlightening. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this point is getting moot. The article is to be called a revolution because : 1 as you say it is the most common name for it in use (according to Google) 2 it conforms to the Hungarian naming 3 it conforms to English official usage (as in House of Representatives Resolution 479, and the mentioned UN report, Brithish Foreign Office, US State Department 4 it is not our position to dispute the conventions and deliberations behind the naming of this event, be it anything from revolution to uprising to counter-revolution , as any name not bearing "Revolution" in it would be deliberate POV against the Hungarians (and about the argument that Revolution is POV for the Hungarians: I have to say that its the name of the event, I don't even think that we have to proove that its revolution, it is a series of events that is currently called a revolution by sources that really matter (like the United Nations, or more recently the US House of Representatives), the nature of the events might be called anything regardless of the name of the article, but they have to be substantiated with really strong references, not just saying its "POV" if there isn't any other point-of-view mentioned from reputable historians or politicians).--Dami 20:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it's been moot for quite a while. Next issue? K. Lastochka 23:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very comprehensive. Wiki-newbie 10:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - much better. most concerns have been addressed.--ppm 18:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. My concerns have been addressed, so I revoke my vote. By the way, this page does not appear on WP:FAC. Was the nomination revoked or something? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, the article became featured last night. :) NCurse _work 11:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy the Vampire Slayer

The old nomination was ridiculously long (old nom) and I had trouble parsing it. It also seemed to touch on a number of issues that don't appear to be problems anymore. Restarting the nomination. Raul654 18:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I reiterate my support. All my concerns have been addressed, this article is well-written, well organized, and well referenced. Riverbend 19:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that minor copyedits are still needed, but they appear to be ongoing and the text is in very good shape. Riverbend 19:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I know there was a whole deal of discussion previously about the fair use images, but Image:Sunnydale High School.jpg could be easily replaced. You barely can read the name Sunnydale High anyway. (that is if Torrance High School still looks (close) the same. Garion96 (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Image:Buffy The Vampire Slayer cast2.jpg includes James Marsters in the group photo. Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Humm, I was the one to raise the fair use image's questions and, after a big cleanup, I retracted my opposition. My judgment was based on the assumption that this image was depicting a fictional building (i.e., little chance for someone taking a picture of it and reelase it) and that its presence was important to the article (which I can't judge because I do not watch the series). If this image is being used sollely as word-illustration or if it is possible for someone to produce a free alternative, the image should go away (note that, even if there's not a free alternative available, but there's nothing that makes one impossible, the fair use claim is invalid per #1 on WP:FUC. Unfree images must be unrepeatable (as the logo, for instance). ). --Abu Badali 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have just attempted yet another reform to improve the article's use of images, there are only six images left (more than 20 images were removed during the old nom)

1. Left alone the logo from the title sequence.
2. Used an image from early on in Buffy in the 'Origins'
3. Moved the free photo of the actors to 'Casting' since the photo features the actors and not the characters. Garion96 are you sure this has Marsters in it, I can't see him?
4. I have left the school one until it's decided what to do? We have to take into account however that taking a photo of the actual school (if anyone here even has access), means that it will no longer be the fictional setting Sunnydale High, and instead be the real-life Torrence High School - which IMO is not the same thing?
5. Left alone the screenshot with format.
6. Used a promo photo featuring the characters in the 'Characters' section.

I am willing to police the article (regularly checking and removing any further unneeded/unacceptable fair-use images) -- Paxomen 05:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture I linked to did, I changed it in the article. I don't know if the image is better but at least it has got Marsters in it. Garion96 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean, I think that's a good choice. -- Paxomen 15:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The "promotional shots" are not promotional at all. Promotional shots come from presskits. Those, come from foxhome.com website, that scrtricle forbisds the resuse of it's contents. See Terms of Use. I'm readding my opposition until this is dealt with. Screenshots are a more safe image choiche for displaying the characters. --Abu Badali 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

They are promo images (used to promote Buffy DVDs), see below -- Paxomen 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - Two images in the article (this and this) are tagged as promotional, but don't come from a source of promotional images (see above). --Abu Badali 16:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have read through the fair use pages a number of times and have not read anywhere that the promo images have to come from a press kit. Surely any promotional images can be clasified as promotional? The tag says:

"This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.

The images in question are used as advertising material (making them promotional) - they are being used by 20th Century Fox at http://www.foxhome.com/buffysplash/index_frames.html to advertise the Buffy Season 1 DVD-set and the Buffy Season 5 DVD-set. All fair use images are already copyrighted, but what makes them 'fair use' is the fact that despite whatever copyright restrictions might be on them they can be fairly used. There are no free alternatives to these images, and I feel they are important to the article.--Paxomen 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)-- Paxomen 22:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear  ;o) — OwenBlacker 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I know this sounds subtle, but these images have not "been released by a company to promote their product in the media". They are being used by the copyright holder to advertise their product. Images released to promote a product are ones that come in press kits or similar sources, that are meant to be used by the media. There's no reason to believe these images were intended to be used by anyone other than the copyright holder itself. If you want to use these copyrighted image under fair use, the {{promo}} tag is not the way to do it.

As a sidenote, the "product in question" is the dvd-box, not the characters. So, even if these images were release to be used by the media, its current use on the article would still not be ok with the {{promo}} tag.

Depends how you interpret "released by a company to promote their product in the media". IMO they have been released on the world wide web and released to the eyes of the looking public. It doesn't matter whether Fox have copyrighted them, or how Fox intended the images to be used, the point of Fair Use, is that they still be fairly used if appropiate if not being done for profit (and obviously no profit is being made from the use of these 2 promo images).

Re: Sidenote: The tag does not just say "product in question". In full it says "to illustrate the work or product in question". On the Buffy article the images are illustrating the "work" involved in the creation of the DVDs (and therefore the creation of the series) which includes the creation of the fictional characters. The fictional characters are a key component of the DVD contents, without the fictional characters there would be no DVDs. -- Paxomen 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support -- Per before, great article. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 22:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support -- Very notable subject, good writing, many sources, justified use of images. Xiner 23:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments Compared to the overall body of prose, the citations are excessive (especially as they aren't even an FA requirement). This topic does not merit 91 citations as just a few facts are of such a nature. The prose hits me like the article is barely 32kb, and then I see the citations making it 70kb. I suggest you reduce citations as far as possible (though carefully) and bring 70kb as close to 45-50kb as possible. Also, no need to subdivide "Cultural impact" into so many sections. Rama's arrow 00:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The text itself is 36kb, and over 5800 words not including 'Contents' and 'Footnotes' sections, and not including images or any other wiki-language. This means there is an average of one footnote for roughly every 64 words of prose.

Removing any of the citations means that readers cannot easily verify information they are being told, and for all they know it could just be being made up from the heads of Wikipedians. The footnotes are not a significant obstacle to reading the article (especially since the numbers are of a smaller size than the text), those who have no interest in verifying the information they are reading can just ignore them and read the article.

Many featured pages may not have as many as one footnote per 64 words, but IMO that does not mean that there is anything wrong with a strongly backed article. -- Paxomen 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would make the same argument as you in many cases. There's nothing "wrong" with the article. But the citations alone double the size of the article. Not having citations doesn't make facts unverifiable or wrong, which is why inline citations are not required. I just think you've put in too much, which is just a little less bad than putting in too little - a balanced article is what I think this should be. Cheers, Rama's arrow 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean the size is an issue? That there is too much data taking into account the wiki-language? I read a while back that it was better to not get too big because some browsers can't deal with it. But that does not seem to be a problem anymore. Check out Wikipedia:Article size. I just read it, and it currently says that:

-- Paxomen 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On a subject that generates many different opinions and in an article that makes so many statements, I feel this article should have many citations. I do think that some of the citations are too verbiose, but I don't think there are too many of them. Xiner 02:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is a general feeling that 91 cites would be ok in this case, dat's fine. I am concerned about this element of "overciting," which goes on to create a size problem. But its not something which would cause me to oppose this nom. Its a very good article - good work on the image rationales. Rama's arrow 03:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the number of citations are appropriate - leaving unsourced assertions is much worse than being overly careful. I am impressed with the careful work that has been done on researching this page, and strongly believe that the citatitons add to the verifiability (?) and worth of this article. If Wikipedia doesn't mind the extra size of citations, there is no reason to make this a less-well-researched article. Riverbend 13:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

They just don't strike me as an excessive number of cites, maybe it is because I am used to working on law review articles, which are way more citation-heavy than this article. In my experience, each assertion in an article should be followed by at least one citation, which generally means at least one footnote per sentence. These citations seem adequate, not excessive.Riverbend 20:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to look over the whole article and determine support or oppose, but I would like to comment on this matter of citing sources. Not only is citing one's sources one of the FA requirements, but it's a requirement of every article according to Wikipedia policy. There's absolutely no reason — article size or anything else — to ever remove valid citations. Ryu Kaze 17:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support As before, well written and displayed article. I feel the use of images was well justified. Jacobshaven3 01:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support I reiterate my opinion on this article. A great work that deserves to be featured. Thanks for letting me know about this. --Gustave - May I help you? 01:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom --andrewI20^Talk 02:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom — OwenBlacker 09:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent article deserving of acknowledgement by the Wikipedia community. --ScienceApologist 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Very good article. --Carioca 05:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. 91 citations is fine (even great) for an article with almost 6000 words, and all images have detailed and justified fair use rationales. -- Buffyverse 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Oppose. For the following reasons:
  • The article (Broadcasting section) does not discuss how or why the show ended (cancelled, mutual decision?)
  • Some weak sources, especially for "Impact on television". A lot ("second 'Most Influential SciFi Shows of the ’90s'", "Without [Buffy], we wouldn’t have Charmed or Smallville") is referenced via BellaOnline.com which doesn't appear to be a reliable source.
  • The existence of the term "Buffyverse" is cited via a Google search, probably not acceptable per WP:RS
  • The first sentence in "Awards and nominations" is "Buffy has received awards and nominations." This is awkward and extremely redundant.
  • The article uses three columns for "Footnotes and references". While I have no problem reading them using a 1680 resolution, I would imagine they look pretty strange for people with lower resolutions. -- EnemyOfTheState 00:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

OK I made edits suggested above.

Broadcasting: Introduced some new text outlining the end of the series.

"The seventh and final season was originally broadcast on UPN during 2002-2003. Sarah Michelle Gellar explained to Entertainment Weekly why she decided not to sign on for an eighth season, "[When] we started to have such a strong year this year, I thought: 'This is how I want to go out, on top, at our best."^[3]"

That's what I was looking for, thanks. Though one more sentence like "The network decided not to continue the series without Gellar" might still be a good idea, especially if there was such speculation at the time. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Google: I changed the text to:

"This expansion of the series encouraged online fan-use of the term 'Buffyverse' to describe the fictional universe in which Buffy and related stories take place.^[4]"

I know that normally Google would not be used in a reference, but it is not being used to make a controversial statement, "Buffyverse" is widely used online, if we remove the Google reference, is it any better to simply include some examples of web sites at which it is used?

Why not use the tenth hit or so, a CNN story [9]? That would be a much better source. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bella: I removed the Bella reference in the opening a while back, but feel that it still deserves to be mentioned in the influences section: Although Bellaonline is not hugely famous relative to a site like IMDB.. it does have fairly high traffic. It got 2485 unique hits from a sample of 365422 monitored AOL users in a three month period, therefore appeared on a list of high traffic web sites.[10] If the AOL sample is represenative of American internet users, then during a three month period roughly 0.7% of the internet population visits the site. Therefore it probably has a coverage comparable to some published magazines. It also has over [one million google hits [11], and you can read more about it here. I can remove it if people think that's what needs to be done?

My main concern is neutrality, rather than notability. While I'm not familiar with the site, it seems to be a women's (feminist?) website, therefore they might have an agenda to exaggerate the influnce of the series. If the show was as influential as described, I'm sure there are some comparable statements in publications like Entertainment Weekly, TV Guide, etc. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

References columns: Think I've solved this but not sure? The references seem fine on my screen.

Using two columns would have been fine with me, but if you prefer this, it's alright as well. -- EnemyOfTheState 11:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Paxomen 03:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Google - Removed the google reference, and replaced it with the CNN ref you suggested.

Bella - Also removed the Bella reference , and also balanced the section out by adding some of the negative publicity about the influence of the show:

"Commentators of the entertainment industry including All Movie Guide, Hollywood Reporter and the Washington Post have cited Buffy as "influential"... The Parents Television Council was not impressed with the series, for its efforts to "deluge their young viewing audiences with adult themes".^[5] Some Christians also worried about the series positive portrayal of witchcraft.^[6]"

Added some more text to broadcasting:

"Whedon and UPN gave some considerations to production of a spin-off series that would not require Gellar, this included a possible Faith series, but nothing became of those plans. (Haberman, Lia, "A Buffy-less "Buffy"? Have Faith", E! Online (Feb 11, 2003))

The spin-offs are discussed in more detail in the article, lower down, see Undeveloped spinoffs - Paxomen 23:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Paxomen 13:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A few more quick thoughts (these are no points of objection, rather questions or suggestions). Wouldn't it be more logical to list "Setting and filming locations" and "Inspirations and metaphors" in the production section, rahter than in Storylines? Also, I would consider putting the awards section either in "Cultural impact" or at least above the DVD releases; that way the prose wouldn't be disrupted by the DVD table. And one last thing, it is probably worth mentioning that the series was among TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time, ranking at No. 41. -- EnemyOfTheState 02:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO 'Inspirations' could fit into 'Productions' or 'Storylines', but the "Metaphors" half of that subsection is more comfortable in 'Storylines'.

Renamed 'Storylines' to 'Setting and storylines' to try and prevent 'Productions' becoming overly large, and also because the 'Setting' subsection greatly aids the understanding of all of the other 'Storyline' subsections.

Moved the 'Awards' section above the DVD section, since removing 'awards' from 'Series information', would leave a whole section with only one subsection.

Nice find on the TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time. I added a mention in the opening.

-- Paxomen 12:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but I still think the fair use claim on the school picture is weak. See [12]. Garion96 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The Wookieepedian 07:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, well-written article. - Mailer Diablo 13:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Great article. -- Vision Thing -- 15:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well written article, has a lot of info. Overall worthy. --Allycat (Talk - Contribs)
• Object—1a. There's a lot of good in this article, so why not polish it?
  • "the latest in a line of young women chosen to battle against vampires,...". Who chose her? Remove "against"?
  • "Buffy is aided by a Watcher who guides and trains her." I have a feeling that your intended meaning requires a comma after "Watcher".
  • I don't usually comment on the absence of commas (often it's a matter of personal style), but there are instances in this article where they're required. For example: "Several years later, Gail Berman, a Sandollar Productions executive approached Joss Whedon". (After "executive".) And before "which": "The writer wrote a full script which went through a quick rewrite from the show runner."?
• Support The article is quite OK. Text might get better, but almost all the possible improvements are a matter of taste, and not of actual litterary compliance to standards.

And there's more. Can you find a word-nerd who's interested in the topic and is unfamiliar with the text? Search for good copy-editors of similar FAs. Collaboration is important, and fun. Tony 15:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly valid points, but I think compared to that English Premier League article featured a few days ago, this shines. It could use polish, but I feel certain recent featured articles have been worse. This isn't an argument for the nomination, just an observation. Xiner 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

No, comparing a current FA with substandard articles that have been let through in the past is utterly irrelevant. The criteria and the standards of writing have risen, thankfully. Who is going to bring this one up to the required "professional" standard of writing? Tony 01:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Introducing... The word nerd. Buffy is my favorite series ever (before Lost, 6fu, SITC and the Sopranos), and I never even read the article. I guess I fit the job. I'll have a look and post results around.--SidiLemine 17:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Ranting

Please mind that this is not opposing the nom, just advising possible ways to improve the prose. I'm sorry I wasn't there for all the peer reviews, etc., but I'm still pretty new on Wiki. This is actually my first FACR.--SidiLemine 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are a few things from first look:

In Origins: Several years later - how many?

The four last sentences of the Origins section can be coupled two by two. did tihs myself. Gee, editing an article that well referenced is tiring for the eyes.

Done the same to beginning of Exec Prods.

The same can be done in Writing. Longer sentences make the article flow more easily. In the second part of the article, the tense isn't right. This should all be "the episode would be broken" and "the credited author would write". The whiteboard can stay the same, as it was probably always there. But the past tense in this part makes it look like it was ritual, almost mechanical, and systematic, which doesn't exist in production.

Last sentence of "Casting" needs a citation, or must leave.

Colon, not comma, before SMG's citation in "Broadcasting".

I have to leave, will finish tomorrow. --SidiLemine 17:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be useful to mention somewhere that the "Scoobies" take their name from Scooby-Doo. Lead: "The latest in a line" is better with "one in a line", as in Characters. Broadcasting: ...possible spinoff (...) including a possible... Opening seq: "The sequence, with this music heard over images of a young cast involved in the action and turbulence of adolescence, provides a post-modern twist on the horror genre. (I don't think it bends the meaning too much). Music: Nothing to do with wording, but didn't K's choice perform (or was announced) at the bronze at some point? setting & filming locations: Is there any other nightclub than the bronze in sunnydale? If not it should be the local nightclub. Also, the phrase about the house makes it seem that they all come to live together, and never one by one. Format: self-contained story which in Buffy (italics). Are the vampires in Buffy actually "based on traditional myths, lore, and literary conventions"? Ritterary convetions mayhe, but certainly not traditional ones. They're probably the first vampires I saw that learnt martial arts when digging out. "They frequently save the world"... If I remember well there's a limited number of apocalipses (or whatever plural that gets). Two? Three? I think it would be better to mention it. Plot: I love "He once more becomes a sadistic killer seeking to destroy the world". So buffy-like. "Buffy returns from Heaven" could possibly made stronger (is torn from, is taken out of....) "and Willow becomes addicted to magic. When Willow's girlfriend is killed by a deranged murderer, Willow descends into darkness and begins a rampage." could be "and Willow becomes addicted to magic. When her's girlfriend is killed by a deranged murderer, she descends into darkness and begins a rampage." I'd also put something, even if not specific, about love and sacrifice in the last episode, to sy that they didn't defeat all the evil and vampires in the world with a bunch of 15yo girls and Willow's magic. Main Characters: Maybe the Watcher's Council's job could be made a responsibility.;) Same, Giles offers advice on how to defeat creatures. "Willow is originally a bookish wallflower who provides ...". Last sentence: 144 episodes, minus one for Xander.) Supporting: "with Riley Finn (Marc Blucas), who is initially an operative in a military ": if you're not detailing the aftermath, you might as well take out the "who is initially" part. Also, if it's a military organisation, their technology probably is too. "For example the Big Bad characters were featured for at least one season (e.g., Glorificus was a character..." That's an example in an example. Take one out. Spinoffs: Chronology is already traced at Buffyverse Chronology, but can be found there.

That's it for today!! If no one feels like taking this down, I'll probably manage to get to it by the end of the week.--SidiLemine 13:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I will always remember that Virgin State of Mind by K's Choice was performed in the episode Doppelgängland. A fantastic song fit for my favorite Buffy episode. Xiner 01:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demosthenes

I started the rewriting of this article a few months ago. The article, which is now a GA, has already gone through four peer-reviews: 2 thorough peer-reviews (Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes and Wikipedia:Peer review/Demosthenes/archive), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Demosthenes) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Demosthenes). I'm grateful to users Peirigill, Robth and Chaleyer61 who were eager to copy-edit the text, and to Konstable who offered me a helpful review of the article. I thought it was the right time for this nomination.--Yannismarou 14:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: far meeting of the featured article criteria. - Tutmosis 15:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support—Nice encyclopedic article on a classically encyclopedic topic. Williamborg (Bill) 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support of course. I see it has only improved from the already high standard!--Konst.able 11:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Demosthenes, son of Demosthenes, said the following:... Support. :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 12:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support - I've constantly admired how Yannis has brought an originally mediocre article to such standards of excellence to make it one of my favourite articles in wikipedia.--Aldux 13:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent article. --ScienceApologist 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article Kyriakos 07:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC) (forgot to put my name)
• Support. Superbly researched, informative, and a great read. --Robth^Talk 05:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no need to retell the whole story in the lead. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  Response to Ghirla: I'm grateful you had the eagerness to go through the article and express your opinion; every comment is useful. Nonetheless, your point of of view may be interesting, but goes against Wikipedia's poilicies and instructions. According to WP:LEAD:

  The article "should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make". This is a long article and, therefore, three paragrpahs are reasonable.

  "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". That is why I have to retell the whole story in the lead in a summary style. And that is exactly what this article does. This article follows to the letter Wikipedia's instructions about the lead as I just explained. Therefore, your objection is of course inactionable.--Yannismarou 17:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

  There should be no instructions creep. The guideline you cite certainly needs to be modified. No encyclopaedia follows this pattern; what's the point of reading the article when you have a spoiler in the lead? Having checked recent Main Page articles (such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), I advise you to reduce the lead to two concise passages. Then I will change my vote. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Further response to Ghirla: The problem is not whether you'll change or not your vote. The problem is what Wikipedia suggests. And in WP:LEAD it is suggested that "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". We like it or not, this is the current instruction. Therefore, your objection is based on some "personal opinion" of you and not the concrete Wikipedia instructions. This is the current Wikipedia instruction and you also admit it. That is why your objection is inactionable.
  

The article you mention became FA 8 months ago. If you want to see the current trends in Wikipedia about the lead, just check Alcibiades, Theramenes or Third Servile War. Articles that recently became FAs and have to do with antiquity. The article you mention is a terribly wrong example for one more reason. It is less than 30Kb, while Demosthenes is muuuuch longer, 86 kb! How can you compare a short with a long article? This is obviously wrong! According to your own argument, I should triple the lead of Demosthenes (because Demosthenes is 3 time bigger than the article you mention), in order to have a nice lead! But then I should expand Demosthenes' lead; not shrink it!! This is irrational!

You are obviously away from FACs for a long time. If you want to check the new trends in FAC as far as the lead is concerned just check the nomination page of the Third Servile War (here). In this review I also participated and I criticized Vedexent, the nominator, (I did not object as you did-I just commented) about his long lead. Just notice that the lead of this article is twice as big as the lead of Demosthenes! Nevertheless, Vedexent gave me a persuasive and effective answer. I quote: "Leads - in my opinion - should be a brief summary of the entire article; leads should be "mini-articles" in themselves. Now, that isn't a universally held view of how Wikipedia articles should be. You might not agree. But I made a conscious choice to structure the lead and the article that way." And this argument was accepted and the article easily became a FA. Just notice that in the Third Servile War the lead was the 15% of the whole article and it was fine. In Demosthenes the lead is probably less than 10% of the whole article!

In addition to all these, did you notice that Demosthenes is selected for the Version 0.5 release of Wikipedia (similar to 1.0)? Hm?? Did you notice in WP:LEAD that "For the planned Wikipedia 1.0 (a static version of Wikipedia distributed on CD, DVD, or paper) one recommendation is that the articles will consist of just the lead section of the web version". This means that the lead must stand alone. This means (and I repeat it once again!) that we have to retell the story in a summary way. That is what Wikipedia asks for us for its projects. I'll not be tired to repeat that.

I also ask you to read Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. According to this Wikipedia recommendation, an article of more than 30.000 characters should consist of 3-4 paragraphs. But isn't that exactly what I did? The article you decided to review is of about 50.000 characters of prose. I could even have 4 paragrpahs! According to WP:LEAD this is not a long lead, but a relatively short one. Then, where is your objection based, when the lead has the right size and the right content??

For all these reasons, your objection is in opposition to WP:LEAD and, in general, to all the guidelines of Wikipedia. Your arguments are based on your personal taste and not on what we are asked to do, when we write a FAC. Therefore, the objection is inactionable.--Yannismarou 13:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty actionable, actually—it's just that it would be a pretty bad idea to go along with it. The lead is meant to stand on its own as a summary of the article, so the objection to having a "spoiler" (what does that term mean in this context, anyways?) in the lead isn't a particularly meaningful one. Kirill Lokshin 04:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the conclusion remains the main. It is a pretty bad idea to go along with this objection!--Yannismarou 06:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Can benefit from more ilinks, for example, in the very lead, there are terms like rhetoric, speech, suit and others that should be hyperlinks.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions. I hyperlinked the terms you mentioned as well as a few more throughout the article. I just don't want to overdo it. The article is already full of links and I don't want to get it overwikified. For instance, since I link the technical terms oration, oratory and orator, linking speech is not absolutely necessary. In any case I added all the technical links I found.--Yannismarou 05:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support A fantastic article, as usual.UberCryxic 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Good article Periklis* 20:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star

Prior FAC attempts: archive1, archive2

This article is about a core concept in astronomy. It has undergone multiple PR's and all of the issues raised during the last FAC have been addressed. Since the last FAC this page has undergone some growth and the organization of two of the sections have been enhanced. I believe it is of FA quality. Please take a look and let me know if you agree. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object
• First sentence: A star is ... gravity and, unlike a planet, ... to sustain nuclear fusion in a very dense, hot core region. Bad sentence structure. Don't use comparisons or negative phrases in the lead (unlike)
  • Ah the joys of collaborative edits. That was actually correct at one point before somebody decided to edit it into the current form. It appears to have been addressed. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• (HR-diagram)... lay people will not know what this is unless they click on it (causing a fork in reading). Avoid using in lead as the context needs to be explained to establish understanding.
  • "A Hertzsprung-Russell diagram (HR-diagram) shows the pattern of the temperature of stars against their absolute magnitude..." Isn't this self-explanatory? I reordered the sentence slightly to make it clearer. — RJH (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 1.1 & 3.3.1 are single subsections. Considered bad style to have a single subsection in almost all style guides.
  • The manual of style states to "use sub-headings if the section becomes a bit long". I see nothing in there about it being bad style to have single subsections, and the section breaks seem appropriate. Could you clarify? — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • About the sectioning: I can't quote a style guide off hand, but in all my work editing over the years, I have come across the rule that to have a sub section, you must have at least two subsections. The text before the first subsection becomes the overview of the following sections. Take a look at any printer manual or magazine article.
• I don't see the lead summarizing the article.
  • Yes that's somewhat true. I think it focuses on key points. But I added in a couple of additional paragraphs. Hopefully that will be sufficient. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Early astronomers such as Tycho Brahe
  • Fixed. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Observation history contains mostly western science viewpoints. In 1584 Giordano Bruno suggested that the stars were actually other suns, and may have Earth-like -- has this never been proposed before?
  • The focus of the article is on the scientific aspects of the stars. Unfortunately most the history of the telescopic observation of the stars is from a western viewpoint. So I regard a certain bias in that aspect as a necessity from the 1600's onward. I added in Democritus and Epicurus, two early Greek philosophers who suggested the idea of other worlds. Also western, "unfortunately". :-) — RJH (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• seeing variability -- I've just started to read the article and I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.
  • I attempted to clarify this. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• 225 km/s -- Mos for units not followed. Use the non-breaking space
  • Mos? Please clarify your abbr. Ah, okay: mos = Manual of style. Mos states to use SI units. "km/s" is SI units. I added npsp's and linked the units. — RJH (talk)
• Article size is large. Suggest a summary: =Formation and evolution= can and should be summarized keeping the technical details in sub articles
  • The "formation and evolution" section is a summary, at least to me. Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic. I am reluctant to implement this suggestion as this is a core element of the article. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately the FA guidelines require completeness, and this is a large topic – sadly, most FAC editors get stuck with this point. See #4 of WP:WIAFA. (staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • By moving extraneous content here to the sub article, and summarizing that content here, you can get the daughter article featured with a little extra work. It's referenced after all :)
• .gif image found. Convert to .png
  • I am unclear why this is the basis for an objection. Gif files are a well-known format that is supported by all browsers. — RJH (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Image use policy#Format states that static diagrams should be in the .png format. PS I'm happy that some of the diagrams are svg. Excellent work!
• I don't see an absolute need of keeping mathematical figures for =Radiation= & Nuclear fusion reaction pathways. The two sections can be summarized further, and details moved to sub articles. Since this is a general topic, the page should be reader friendly to people not familiar with trignometery.
  • I'm going to wait and see if others object to this. For now I think the formulae are relevant and can be kept on the basis of precedent: black hole, photon, roche limit and speed of light.
    • Well not all articles are the same. Roche limit for example would be more tuned for a person with a science background reading it. Afterall you need a knowedge of trignometry to calculate it. The formulae are currently essential as it is used in context, but to remove it you would have to rewrite it so that the need for the formulae is obviated.
• Main article: main sequence -- should be Sentence case: (Main sequence)
  • Why? It's all one sentence. Please clarify. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • {Main article} clarification: The first letter of the linked article should be capitalized. (star formation --> Star formation; Stellar evolution). So that this is consistent with the usage in other articles on wikipedia. Regards.
• Use &minus; to mark out the minus sign
• ...to our eyes, only because it is merely 8.6 light-years away from us, while Canopus is much further away from us at 310 light-years. --> "...to the eye only because Sirius (8.6 light years) is much closer to earth than Canopus (310 light years). (Don't use our)
• Context needed for many terms. I'll give you one example: As the cloud collapses, individual Bok globules form... --> ... as the cloud collapses, dark clouds of dense dust and gas called Bok globules form...

I don't have time to check on all the points. If all are taken care off, please strike my objection off. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.180.4.162 (talk)

Thanks for your review. As I noted above I have a some issues with a few of your objections, so I'm going to hold off on some of the suggested changes to see what consensus is reached. :-) — RJH (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Support, with some qualifications. Re anons points, the use of a comparison is appropriate here because it's central to the definition. To define a star is to distinguish it from a planet.

I agree with the anon. The article on Definition states that you define something by stating the essential properties of the thing being defined. It not being a planet is not an essential property. I've removed the "unlike a planet" due to this.Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• The formation section does appear long given the sub-articles, but this article is better than the subs, after a glance at them. Don't compress this one, until you're sure those are in order. Abundance and redundancy is preferable to a lack of coverage.

• The lead is insufficient, as it only summarizes evolution. Consider a short para on characteristics, another on classification, and at least a sentence devoted to observation history.
  • I've added two more paragraphs. If it were any longer I think people might complain about excessive length of the introduction. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Writing: some excess language at the clause level, but this is well-written.
  • If there is excess language, some judicious cleanup would be most welcome. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good job! Marskell 10:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The lead sentence says that a star is "a massive, compact body...". Massive and compact seem contradictory words and a bit ambiguous. Harryboyles 13:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is it the word "massive" that's ambiguous? Perhaps "enormous" would serve? Massive implies dimension, while compact is a measure of density. (A galaxy is enormous but non-compact; a neutron star is relatively small, but highly compact.) — RJH (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Then perhaps change it to "massive, dense" or something similar? Harryboyles 01:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The density of a star is variable, depending on either the radius and the state of evolution. Using "dense" would be inappropriate. I think "compact" captures the concept more accurately. Sorry. — RJH (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
        • In everyday (non-scientific) usage, compact means (or at least strongly implies) small, not dense. For example, I expect a "compact digital camera" to fit in my pocket, not to meet some arbitrary space utilization percentage. Thus, it would be easy to see this as a contradiction in terms (massive, compact). Also, I don't see why you say "compact is a measure of density" but then say that "the density of a star is variable", and thus conclude that "compact" is a better term to use than "dense". Even if used as a term of density, "compact" implies high density, just as "dense" does. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Merriam-Webster: "1: predominantly formed or filled; 2a: having a dense structure or parts or units closely packed or joined."[13] The word is perfectly fine as used here. Marskell 15:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
            • OK, I still disagree, but in any case why not simply say "dense", since that's apparently what "compact" means anyway? Ambiguity is evil. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question There seem to be a lot of multiple wikilinks. Is it necessary to link all of them so many times? Jay32183 18:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I always liked having a relevant link close at hand, but no probably not. Is there a program somewhere that will search for duplicate links? — RJH (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Auto Wiki Browser will find them. I'd have done it when I viewed it for the simple spell check, but I wasn't sure what astronomers considered necessary. I think the typical view arcoss wikipedia is that only complete dates need to be, and that's so date formatting works. If you want to get rid of all of the multiples or have a list of those you wish to keep, I can make all of the duplicates so it only has the first instance. Jay32183 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
      • If you have a means to automatically eliminate the duplicates, that would be most appreciated. The extra links can always be added back in where they are most needed. Otherwise it would be an almost herculean task to check and compare every link. In fact it would be beneficial if WP had a tool that would perform the task of finding duplicate links on a page. — RJH (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I have reduced all the duplicates to only their first use. This reduced the overall number of wikilinks to 225. Jay32183 03:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
          • Thank you! Personally I really dislike having to search through an article for a link I want. But the majority deems otherwise, apparently. :-) — RJH (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro is improved. Good job.

Another editor pointed out that one difficulty with this page is the introduction of terms without an explanation. Having dozens of paranthetical asides can make for a clunky ready, but perhaps someone can go through and at least add an adjective or two based on the sub-article.

For instance "individual conglomerations known as Bok globules" --> "individual conglomerations of dense dust and gas known as Bok globules". This won't overburden the writing too much and will make the page more user-friendly. Marskell 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've done quite a bit of editing to try and address those concerns. Some of the heavier material has been moved to the stellar evolution page, for example. I also moved most of the formulae elsewhere, but I left the nuclear reactions in place for now. I'm not expecting this FAC to succeed at this point, and it's not clear to me that the article has a chance of becoming significantly improved. So time for me to move on. Thanks. — RJH (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Just a query: "Once the hydrogen fuel at the core is exhausted, the star expands to becomes a red giant,..". It's not my area, but I had a vague idea that, depending on its pre-existing size, a red giant was only one of three options here. I'm probably wrong, though. Tony 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In fact, our page on red giants suggests that red dwarfs may not be large enough to undergo the expansion. If so, even "most stars" would be innappropriate as most stars are red dwarfs. That will always be speculative though, because no red dwarf has yet completed its lifecycle. The third option would be a supernova. I'll try and tweak that if RJH doesn't. Marskell 14:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support though I'd rather not see this nomination oscillate between active and withdrawn anymore. My only suggestion would be to include an example of an HR diagram - I know they can be large, but a small one would be useful, because it's discussed a lot but readers have to click the link to see what it is. (Also, "massive and compact" is in no way contradictory; leave that one alone.) Opabinia regalis 01:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support (Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)), with a few caveats that I'd like to see fixed:

• A fair few of the references have (English) next to them - this is superfluous, as it is normally assumed that the references are in english unless a tag saying otherwise is present.
• All dates should be of the form 13 October 2006 (or October 13, 2006) - namely, wikilinked. Some of the dates in the references aren't.
• "However, since the lifespan of such stars is greater than the current age of the universe (13.7 billion years), no black dwarfs exist yet." - how can you be definite that they don't exist? I'd refine that to say that it is expected that no black dwarfs exist, and possibly mention that it would be difficult to detect them due to their low / non-existent emissions. A reference would also be nice here.
• The article should have more pictures. As said by someone else above, a H-R diagram would be a good idea. I'd also consider adding a segment of a spectra of a star, and at least one decent one of the sun - there's plenty to choose from on Sun.

Mike Peel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2004 Atlantic hurricane season

A renomination after nearly 17 months of improvement. I think it is ready this time. CrazyC83 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• The "Seasonal forecasts" section is a bit choppy. Is it possible to write this in longer paragraphs? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. But I think the related articles box can be removed, as it has only one article listed. íslenskur fellibylur #12 _(samtal) 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the layout seems kind of messy, for example is it really necessary to have external links in text to the NHC for every hurricane, given that every huricane has its own article?--Peta 02:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Lots of improvement since last nom, I also agree with Icelandic (remove related articles box). Hello32020 02:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Weak object; well writen in general, but with a few MOS violations (using seasons in place of early/mid/late 2004) and some of the citations, especially number of deaths and damage, could do with being placed at the first instance of the data (in this case the intro) rather than halfway down the page. If these are fixed, then support. Laïka 15:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support if only with solidarity for my previous failed nom. ;) Looks good. --Golbez 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Looks like a featured article, it's good, I'm giving my support. Hello32020 10:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, improved noticably, more comprehensive, well-written. - Mailer Diablo 13:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very comprehensive, a great deal of references that ensures factuality, very informative. --Cliff smith 03:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redshift

Please see 2 previous failed nominations in the archives.

Renomination of this good, peer-reviewed article. I believe that it is of higher quality than most of the articles that are currently FA. We worked through and provided citations as per a new project at a physics project collaboration and now I am confident that all of the major stylistic objections of the previous FACs are satisfied. After much work, I think the article currently is as high if not higher quality than most featured articles. We need more featured science articles too. --ScienceApologist 19:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes fixed to agree with WP:FN, where to place ref tags, with Gimmetrow's ref fixer. Sandy 19:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. --ScienceApologist 19:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Clearly written, comprehensive overview (to the best of my knowledge) with thorough referencing. Anville 19:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Decline. Since the article is partly used in evidence in a Request for Arbitration, I think it would be prudent to wait for the outcome. I declare that as I started the RfArb, that I may have a conflict of interest. --Iantresman 19:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  As pointed out in the first FAC, inclusion of an article as evidence in RfArb is not an actionable reason for objecting to the FAC. --ScienceApologist 19:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment There should be no use of ibid in the footnotes. If a new footnote is added then ibid will no longer refer to the right footnote. --Peter Andersen 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  There are now no more ibids in the article. --ScienceApologist 20:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support This is a very good article, probably one of the best science (physics) articles I've come across on WP.O. Prytz 21:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support I have been watching this article since the last FAC and I must say that I am happy with the way it has improved. The references match the best science articles (as they should!) and overall everyone has done a great job. InvictaHOG 01:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support with a few nitpicks on the writing:

• "the phenomenon should apply to all wave-phenomena..." is redundant.
• "These observations were eventually considered strong evidence for an expanding universe" - past tense gives the wrong implication that this is no longer the case.
• There's a reference to the Einstein effect but no explanation - an appositive description would be useful.
• "will experience deviations from the above formula due to the time dilation of special relativity by introducing the Lorentz factor γ" - minor complaint, but this says the deviations arise from the Lorentz factor, when it is more precise to say the factor corrects for the deviations.
• "measuring redshifts is the most important spectroscopic measurements made in astronomy" - verbs is not conjugated correctly.

Opabinia regalis 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• All now fixed. --ScienceApologist 11:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object Article has active and ongoing disputes reguarding its content, partially exhibited by that RfAr. This would be against 1e in my opinion. The fact that there is no resolution yet means that the article could easily become unstable at any given time due to the content conflicts. Kevin_b_er 18:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What content dispute are you referring to? The RfArb is over a global dispute regarding NPOV and other WIkipedia policies for which former content disputes regarding redshift are only tangentially related by means of proposed evidence. There are currently no active content disputes at redshift. The article is about as stable as I've ever seen an article. As such, I find this objection to be based on innuendo and not on evidence or actionable issues. Please elaborate what the content dispute you are describing if you really do have evidence. --ScienceApologist 18:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The examples I gave in the RfArb specifically refer to the content of the article. It seems better to go through Arbitration, than to continue to edit war with you. See my Example 2 in the Request for Arbitration. for details. --Iantresman 19:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Took a strong look at the dates for disputes. All way in the past except for the concern (in the RfAr) raised by editors recently about the coverage of viewpoints. Does it cover all viewpoints that are important? Global NPOV concerns are still NPOV concerns for the article. Kevin_b_er 21:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• It depends who you ask about the viewpoints. ScienceApologist rightly points out that there are those who say these viewpoints are not important to them (eg. some astronomers). I suggest that perhaps those people in optics who investigate the Wolf effect, which they describe as a new laboratory-demonstrated Doppler-like redshift mechanism, would say it was important to them. And there are others scientists (eg. see www.cosmologystatement.org] who also feel htat some alternative viewpoints are important to them. I think the reader should decide, and those who consider the viewpoints to be unimportant can just skip over them. --Iantresman 21:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object—Needs a copy-edit. To start with, why no deictic for "redshift"? I see "this redshift" in the third para, so why not "a redshift" at the start?
  • "In physics and astronomy, redshift occurs when the visible light from an object is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. Redshift is therefore an observed increase in the wavelength, which corresponds to a decrease in the frequency of electromagnetic radiation, received by a detector compared to that emitted by the source. The corresponding shift to shorter wavelengths is called blueshift."
• Surely it exists whether observed or not, and whether "received by a detector" or not. Compared with for contrasts. Stubby paras. Tony 01:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • These comments are ignorant of how "redshift" is actually discussed in literature and elsewhere. There is "redshift phenomenon" and particular "redshift observations". "A redshift" refers to a particular measurement.
  • Furthermore, no, it isn't true that redshift exists whether observed or not -- it's an observer dependent phenomenon. One can, in theory, get rid of all redshifts simply by having a detector move in the appropriate way per measurement.
  • As such, these suggestions are all editorially unsound. --ScienceApologist 12:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Changed two instances of "compared to" to "compared with".
  • Stubby paragraphs are par for the course in grand summary style generalized topic treatments. I please ask the criticizing Wikipedian to respond. --ScienceApologist 15:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Calling me "ignorant" and my comments "editorially unsound", and pestering me on my user page, won't earn you goodwill. I could refer to your knowledge of English as "ignorant" and "unsound", but I'd never do that. All you had to do was to explain the issues briefly, in a neutral fashion. Read WP:CIVIL.
  • It's significantly overlinked. In a topic as technical as this one, high-value links are important. So why, oh why, do you link common words such as "distance" and "emission"? And gee, the link to "nineteenth century" is really valuable, both to non-specialists and specialists. Wow, I'm so glad I hit that link. Please weed out every link that is not technically useful—then it won't be such a blue-black mess. Then the readers will be more likely to hit the good ones, like "projection" (which is piped to a focused, relevant topic).
  • "Between 2 objects"—no, spell it out if less than 10.
  • "Despite there being a distinction between"—Awkward and, strictly speaking, ungrammatical.
  • Audit the punctuation throughout. "Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity so v > c is impossible ..." would be better as "Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity; thus, v > c is impossible ...". The sentence "The effect is very small but measurable on Earth using the Mossbauer effect and was first observed in ..." has no commas, yet the subsequent sentence does.
  • "In the theory of general relativity, there is also time dilation within a gravitational well"—Every sentence is also. Do we really need the word here? The same for "It is also the dominant cause of large angular-scale temperature fluctuations" and others.

Still work to be done. Tony 02:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the relevant issues you listed above. One note: I don't believe that I was being uncivil. You have to understand I've been through this ringer three times now. I didn't call you "ignorant", I called your comments "ignorant" which they were because they criticized very common phrasing in the field. I still have the opinion that your comments were not well-researched and editorially unsound, but this is a community and we are free to disagree with each other. Obviously you have a different opinion than I do. It doesn't bother me, but it seems to bother you. Furthermore, writing I could refer to your knowledge of English as "ignorant" and "unsound", but I'd never do that. All you had to do was to explain the issues briefly, in a neutral fashion. Read WP:CIVIL. is a bit hypocritical and disingenous, don't you think? Many of your valuable comments are painted with generous helpings of curt sarcasm. I'm fine with banter and back-and-forth, but I'm getting very mixed messages from you to the tune of a double-standard (okay for you to give sarcastic critique, not okay for me to criticize it). You don't like me describing my opinions of your objections and "pestering" you, but you seem to think that you have some higher ground to make very broad objections (c.f. "Stubby paras.") and then not respond to the attempts I made to fix the actionable things you object to.

I do not share the opinion that this article is overlinked. I agree that it was inappropriate to link to the nineteenth century. However, distance and emission should be linked because they are important subjects to the article. In particular, a good understanding of distance is required to understand some of the more amazing implications of the subject.

The comma standard used may be slightly different from Strunk and White: independent clauses, parentheticals, and compound sentences get the commas, everything else doesn't. I looked at the sentences you cited and didn't see a problem. However, unlike you, I am not a copy editor, and editorial standardization is not my cup-of-tea. Currently there is no service on Wikipedia for people who want to request a copy edit for an article. I would ask you to help in this regard.

In view of this, could you consider actually editting the article rather than writing your criticisms down?

No. Tony 15:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe that it is easier to write: "Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity so v > c is impossible ..." would be better as "Doppler redshift is bound by special relativity; thus, v > c is impossible ..." than to simply go in and make the change.

--ScienceApologist 13:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy IV

Was nominated and failed in March, but was fixed up a lot by a collaborative effort of people who worked on the other Final Fantasy FAs and the Chrono ones.

Here's the failed nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Final Fantasy IV/Archive 1

• Co-nom and support. This article's references have gone up to seventy six and the prose was fixed. I was also asked to tell you that if you have an objection, the problems will be corrected swiftly and zealously. Sir Crazyswordsman 19:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom/support; solid article, generally on par with the others; prose is a little "meh" in a couple paragraphs, but it's nitpicking. I believe it passes FAC quite well. — Deckiller 22:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

• Very Strong Support - I am so proud to see this article, which I worked on to get it to GA and sponsored the first FA nomination, finally ready for FA. Thanks guys for your hard work in giving the big push that made this possible. Judgesurreal777 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support and comment: Nice work, but Image:FF4 WSC boxart.jpg and Image:Ffcbox.jpg do not have any sources. Thunderbrand 03:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Judgesurreal777 04:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, Image:Ff4jbox.gif is missing a source. Thunderbrand 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also fixed :) Judgesurreal777 17:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Support - needs a good copyediting. Grammatical errors are rampant. I corrected 3 grammatical errors in the Versions and rereleases section that I ran across by accident while editing content. Kaldari 16:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please elaborate. I can't seem to find any. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The user has a point; I don't even think I touched the versions section. — Deckiller 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I took a look at it. It looks okay to me. There were a few problems in the GBA section which I fixed. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It seems that the article doesn't really need a copyedit any further, as those were isolated issues in a section that was not copyedited previously. — Deckiller 17:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are a few problems I noticed with a casual proofreading of a few sections:

Copyediting:

• "Characters move and interact with people and enemies on a field map, which usually depicts a single area——such as a tower or forest."
• "The ESRB rated it (Everyone 10 and older) and the CERO designated it for all ages." (should say the ESRB rated it "E" (Everyone 10 and older)...)

Awkward sentences:

• Magic is divided into "White" (healing and support) magic; "Black" (offensive) magic; and "Summon" (or "call") magic, used to summon monsters for offensive or specialized applications. (sentence is overly complex and doesn't flow well. overuse of parenthetical phrases makes a sentence hard to read.)
• An early Super Nintendo game, Final Fantasy IV contained graphics improved over past Final Fantasy titles and concurrent Super Nintendo games. (use of conjunction is ambiguous: did FF4 contain other Super Nintendo games? sentence should probably be divided into two sentences or reworded.)
• They meet Tellah along the way, who shares their destination in search of his daughter Anna. (prepositional phrase fits direct object, but not the verb, i.e. it sounds like they are also in search of his daughter. should be rewritten, possibly as two sentences.)

Need to use "logical quoting" per the Manual of Style:

• Most of Final Fantasy IV takes place on Earth, also known as the "Blue Planet."
• The world contains both an "Upper World" and an "Underground."

Redundantcy:

• "an elite air force unit of airships" (wouldn't "elite unit of airships" be adequate?)

Awkward wording:

• "Cecil awakes to find Kain absent" (more typical wording would be "wakes" or "awakens")
• "they must surmount Mt. Hobs" (more typical wording would be "ascend" or "climb", especially before the word Mt.)

Grammar:

• "Yang charters a ship to take him, Cecil, Edward, and Rydia to Baron" (should be "himself")
• "Entitled Final Fantasy IV Advance, the Game Boy Advance port was released in North America by Nintendo of America on December 12, 2005, in Japan by Square Enix on December 15, 2005, and in Europe on June 2, 2006." (needs semicolons)
• "released in Japan on March 27 2002" (missing a comma)

Hope that helps. I only looked through a few random sections to find those, so there are probably more problems that a thorough proofreading would reveal. Kaldari 18:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I went in and fixed the vast majority of your edits, and looked through the rest of the article, and I would agree with you in some places (which I fixed earlier). However, I need some help with the WP:MOS concerns you brought up. How exactly should I treat in-game definitions (which have been explained and, of course, referenced). Sir Crazyswordsman 18:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Manual of Style recommends "logical" quoting: "When punctuating quoted passages, include the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations)." What this means is that if the puctuation mark is part of what is being quoted, include it inside the quotation marks, otherwise put it outside the quoation marks. Kaldari 23:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

All problems solved. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral - The story section is far too long. Three paragraphs should be more than enough to summarize the plot. If you want to keep the current description, then please move it to another article, and use summary style here. This isn't an issue of article length, but of relevance. An encyclopedia article's job is not to give excessive detail on a video game plot. Thanks. --Taitcha 17:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Please see the pop culture FACs promoted over the last 2-3 months. Also, I noticed you just recently restarted editing; there has been a general shift in what is necessary for comprehensiveness. An encyclopedia's job is to be comprehensive; the story section leaves out many of the minor details as it is. — Deckiller 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All our other FAs have similar length story. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I can understand your worries about people wanting longer/shorter plot details. However, it seems a simple solution to me to have a sub-article with the full plot version, and a summary here. Can't everyone be happy that way? --Taitcha 17:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We didn't start the trend; we followed it. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem with subarticles is that they will cause another camp of users to state that there should not be story-exclusive articles. — Deckiller 17:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Is that a problem you've experienced, or is it just something you're anticipating? Personally, I don't imagine anyone would complain about such a sub-article, and I think it would be a positive new trend. --Taitcha 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • We've had some problems with it in the past. Most of the subarticles that HAVE gotten praise are usually term lists. The thing is also that FFIV's story is one of the most in-depth in the series as far as progression, as there are many minor details (which we left out, for the record) which have SEVERE impact on the story. Look at some of the FFIV character articles on the Final Fantasy Wiki compared to the FFVI or FFVII ones there, and you'll see that their stories have much more importance to the overall plot. It's something I think that's beyond my control. It's for this reason that the story sections are now overloaded with references to the game itself. I should probably say this as the writer and primary referencer of the story section, which has actually been trimmed down (to my greatest impression) after I wrote it. Sir Crazyswordsman 17:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not too happy about the state of things, but out of respect for your efforts, I'll change my vote to Neutral. --Taitcha 17:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
          • That's fine. I understand the merits of and respect your opinion. I just want all our FAs to be consistent. Sir Crazyswordsman 18:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: This being the English Wikipedia, why is the lone battle sequence screen taken from the Japanese version of the game? I think it's much more accessible if readers see "Fight," and "Item" in the command list rather than Japanese characters. EDIT: On second glance, I see that Cecil is in the middle of using an item. Showing the command list at all would be more illustrative of the game's style of combat. --Tristam 20:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But the original game is japanese... Judgesurreal777 23:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your point? We don't want a Japanese screenshot on an English Wikipedia. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Says who? We are not pushing some kind of English-only Wikipedia since this game is JAPANESE, and my point is that there is nothing wrong with including screenshots from the original game, regardless of its language. Judgesurreal777 23:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have an English one up in ten minutes. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It now has an English screen. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CSM. Judge, I think the argument of originality versus accessibility is pretty weak. Final recommendation for CSM: I do like the separate infoboxes for the different versions of the game, but that section always has looked ugly. I think you can remove the FFChronicles infobox; after all, the game does have its own article. I think with that infobox out of the way and the text to help break apart the other infoboxes, it should be easier to move around the infoboxes in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion. --Tristam 00:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I just dont appreciate the terse and seemingly rude response from emulator guy when I was initially requesting clarification. Judgesurreal777 00:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. Remember, the image is being used to describe the game mechanics. Since this is an English Wikipedia, the game mechanics cannot be fully described without an English screenshot, therefore bringing it out of fair use. --TheEmulatorGuy 00:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Emulator Guy and Tristam, I very much appreciate your civility :) And I do see your point, I suppose it is better for comprehension. Judgesurreal777 00:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Voted to support after complaints were addressed. Judge, I apologize for all the hoopla then. Great article though, guys. --Tristam 00:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tristam. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - Once again, a fine, fine article. Here's to yet another Final Fantasy FA! --PresN 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As always, glad to have you aboard. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There is still a bit of easy to fix items that Auto-peer review found such as lengthinging the intro, removing redunant words like 'some', and making the image captions more consise. The APR can be found on the articles talk page. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 02:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support I don't like the short intro but other than that it's good. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 04:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• • There is only one usage of the word "some" in the article (I believe I zapped most of the significant redundancies on the first and second passes; I'm a stiffler when it comes to redundancies). The intro seems to be on par with most of the pop culture FAs as of late, especially the final fantasies. Caption succinctness is one thing that I agree with. — Deckiller 02:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I took care of a few size terms, but I'm not big on removing those, as they often provide a compromise between listing every example and providing misinformation. — Deckiller 02:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for being here, Deck, and for your concerns, Ravedave. I've tried experimenting with caption succinctness, and was able to reduce their size a bit, but I don't know how to go any further without losing meaning. And as for the auto-Peer Review stuff, a lot of it is either stuff I can't really find (the date stuff, mainly) and the interlinking alphabetizing (can't find that stuff either). I may take another look later. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • On second thought, I took another look and fixed most of these little things. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • ALL image captions are now concise, and subtrivia has been removed. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. This is my favorite RPG ever, so I'd love to see this featured. I copy edited the article, but this allowed me to notice other, more fundamental problems:
  • First off, holy moly, the plot synopsis is long! The level of detail given simply isn't necessary; you don't need to mention every boss monster fight and every minor plot twist. I'd cut this section by 1/3 to 1/2.
  • Second, the sources used concern me. We've got the various versions of the game itself, the manuals, and some game magazines (all good), but then the rest of the sources are fan sites (rpgamer.com, allrpg.com, gamesarefun.com, the-magicbox.com, 1up.com, lostlevels.org, mobygames.com, ffcompendium.com, b-rock.netfirms.com, geocities.com/arcanelore2001/, and finalfantasy.neoseeker.com). Per WP:RS, these just don't cut it, especially for a featured article ("self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources").
  • Either incorporate the direct quotes from the game into the main text, or axe them. There's no need for direct quotations unless you want to add color to the article, and that should be done in the main body. — BrianSmithson 10:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

There may be some issues with precedent here. Perhaps the plot can be cut by a third, but lately the trend has been to satisfy the comprehensiveness requirement of featured articles before worrying about length, which isn't a requirement. Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross are examples. Nearly all the featured CVG RPG articles do source quotes from the text in references, too, though I'm not sure if that's an official policy or what.

As for the sources, several of those are review sites that have been accepted with other articles. RPGamer, AllRPG, and GaF are credible reviewers supported by gamerankings.org. I think 1up.com is supposed to be a respected blog, but I don't know too much about it. The b-rock thing is a fan translation reference, so it's normal to have a fansite for that (like the Compendium and RPGOne at Chrono Trigger). Fan translations have also been decided to be notable on WP:CVG's talk page. The real use of the other sources listed is documenting the translation differences. No "real source" breaks down the details, yet this is still relevant information for readers. Unless someone can get IGN to run a special feature on the version changes, there's just no source for this unless we cite these. So not sure what to do about that.

I'm back from an unexpected break, so I'll be able to help with anything. --Zeality 12:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, bad precedent shouldn't change the way we review articles now. I didn't participate in the FACs for Chrono Cross and the others, but had I done so, I would have raised the same conerns. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If you read some of the other comments above, and I've said this many times, you'll understand that a lot of your complaints are really just based on what the trends are. First of all, a lot of the sites you have problems with are actually well-respected sites within the community (and Zeality, 1UP.com is similar to IGN). Direct quotes from the game itself are required. It says somewhere that "in the story section, there should be a reference every two sentences from the story itself." Sir Crazyswordsman 15:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's a policy anywhere. Every two sentences seems like a rather arbitrary rule at any rate. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As I've been very busy lately and haven't really had time to check in, I can neither fairly support nor object at this time simply because I don't have time to read the entire article and give it due analysis, but I would like to comment on the matter of sources. RPGamer is a well known site that has been covering RPG news and reviews for 8 years, and was exclusively covering Square Co. (now Square Enix) games as Square Net for three years before that (some have said that it was even hosted on Square's own server when it was Square Net). In terms of notability, it's in one of the highest tiers.

As for 1UP.com, I can't imagine how that wouldn't qualify. The 1UP network is owned and operated by Ziff Davis Media, and is comprised of several publications, including — but not limited to — Electronic Gaming Monthly and Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine. If this doesn't qualify, nothing would. In fact, the 1UP article being used as a source was written by Jeremy Parish, a contributor to OPM and EGM.

For one of the others, as Zeality has mentioned, the b-rock reference is pretty much necessary given the nature of the information and the citation. I would also contest the notion that Neoseeker isn't a notable source. It's been around for 7 years and is quite well known. I don't really have time to look into or comment on the others, but any of them that are or are affiliated with RPGamer, CNET, Ziff Davis Media or IGN are definitely notable enough.

By the way, as for including quotes from the game itself, that's part of the manual of style, and is a practice not followed as religiously as it should be:

"Of course, out-of-universe information needs context; details of creation, development, etc. are more helpful if the reader understands a fictional element's role in its own milieu. This often involves using the fiction to give plot summaries, character descriptions or biographies, or direct quotations. This is not inherently bad, provided that the fictional passages are short, are given the proper context, and do not constitute the main portion of the article. If such passages stray into the realm of interpretation, secondary sources must be provided to avoid original research. Note that when using the fictional work itself to write these descriptions the work of fiction must be cited as a source. For instance, a video game article should cite the game text, but it should also cite a reliable secondary source when necessary."

That's the most I have to offer for the moment, I'm afraid. Good luck with the FAC. I hope I'll get time to come back by and offer some comments about the article itself. Ryu Kaze 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about RPGamer.com. It does have a large "staff", but there's no evidence that it's subject to any editorial oversight and thus that it is not self-published. I can't find anything to reassure me about neoseeker; it looks like it's open to contributions from anyone (or at least from registered users).

The direct quotation thing (from WP:WAF) was never intended to be interpreted like this (and I should know; I wrote it, though not the addendum about video games, which I hadn't noticed until now). Rather, it was meant to sort out things like detailed backstories of characters taken from 20 different sources and weaved together into one whole. That way people can tell what comic book it was where Darth Vader got his new respirator or what cartoon shows that Speed Racer is afraid of heights. Here, the source is the same throughout. One source cite is enough for the whole plot, just to tell us what translation you're using. The direct quotes as they are being used do nothing but bloat the article and make it appear better referenced than it actually is. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As with the other gaming FAs/FACs, we struck a balance between the two factions (although like FF7, I wasn't a major contributor to this one), so it's highly unlikely that the synopsis will be cut down or expanded unless the featured article criteria can be interpreted correctly and in such a manner that discourages lengthy or short synopsis. As for the sources, a general term for "reliable sources" is misleading and perhaps ignorant on the part of certain aspects of the community (like certain parts of WP:NOT used to be). Reliable sources are different for each article; what's reliable for this would not be reliable for, say, a movie, or a war article. Reliable sources should be reworded to state that "Articles should have the highest level of reliable sources available for the topic". This article has some of the best sources it can get, so I see no problem with any of the sourcing. Final Fantasy IV doesn't have its own series of documentaries on A and E, or five analysis books published. As for the quotations, they have been included for numerous FAs, and they are perfectly fine according to most camps - they have never posed a problem in the past, and removing them would severely weaken the state of the article, as then we'd have people complaining that it's OR. With all of our FAs, we attempt to strike a balance between all factions, as this is the only true way to forge Wikipedia's best. — Deckiller 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with any such rewording of WP:RS. Self-published is self-published, and such sources are largely unacceptible for encyclopedia sources. If these sources are affiliated with academic institutions or the well-known and respected gaming sites mentioned above, I would have no problem. But a Geocities page? That just isn't good enough for the FA level. — BrianSmithson 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, a source should not be treated as lesser just because it is web-based. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the geocities reference (singular) should be removed and replaced by a better source (it's indeed possible; why in the world is a geocities reference in here anyway?!). However, let's keep things in perspective here; most encyclopedias write about major academic issues; stuff that has plenty of the most "reliable sources". However, on Wikipedia, we cover numerous topics very well (and just as factually accurate) with the best sources possible for that topic - and in many cases, they are web sources. Mario, Star Wars, and Donkey Kong would have many more books (or, rather, book sections) than an RPG. I stand by my comments above. — Deckiller 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue isn't web-based vs. print, Crazyswordsman. Rather, it's self-published vs. not self-published. The various fan sites used to source some of this article are self-published, which, per, WP:RS, means they are not acceptable. I understand the frustration in trying to find good sources for pop culture articles such as this one, but it's a slippery slope if we lower our standards for some subjects and not others. I've been in (am in?) a pretty heated argument at Talk:Mami Wata that should illustrate why self-published sources are rightfully warned against in our policies. I stand by my comments, as well. — BrianSmithson 07:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The Geocities thing is used because it's the only site, to my knowledge, that correctly notes that the Japanese Easytype was built from the US version, not the other way around. Ask a casual fan and he or she will say that the US version is a port of the Easytype, which is erroneous. This is unlucky, because it's a very important source. --Zeality 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Co-nom and Support. I'm a little late to the party due to unexpected events. --Zeality 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Finally you made it! At least now I know I'll have some help taking the heat here. Sir Crazyswordsman 21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support and Comment, I'm a little concerned about the actual number of story quotations referenced in the article. It's looking like almost 50% of the references section. Story references are good and all but that may be a bit excessive. Looking at some of the other Final Fantasy FAs, I see around 20 story references for some of the more controversial or obscure story points. Axem Titanium 22:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Regarding the story references, it's 33 out of 76 references, which is less than half. We originally had sixty of them. FFIV is has such a deep and complex story compared to FFVI and even FFVII that it needs this. Almost EVERYTHING in the game has story value and isn't "Just there." Sir Crazyswordsman 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd agree that IV is on the higher end of the spectrum when it comes to having a story where almost everything presented is actually relevant, but I'd still argue that VII has one of the more complex stories. At least in terms of how it's presented. Which is ironic considering how much of the story isn't even relevant to that core complex plot arc. IV is definitely consistent in its developments bearing relevance. By the way, still haven't gotten time to review the whole article, I'm afraid, but I'm liking of what I've seen so far. Ryu Kaze 23:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
      • You're a good man, Ryu, and I really appreaciate all you've done for us. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, thank you for saying so, CS. You guys are most welcome, and it's been my pleasure. I just wish I had more time to lend a helping hand these days. By the way, I've had more time to look over the article and now throw in... (continued just below) Ryu Kaze 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• ... (continued from above) Support for the reasons others have mentioned (particularly the reasons given in Deckiller's vote of confidence) and the touch-ups that have been made since the FAC began. Good work. Ryu Kaze 02:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • • • • • Thanks again Ryu. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - The reception section is lacking. I'm not going to move on this until some relevent contemporary sources are quoted. Although we know that it polled very highly in the Famitsu 2006 readers poll, we don't have any review sources from when the game was actually released. I mean, what did Famitsu actually have to say about this? I've not really commented on that many FACs, but from now on, if there's no contemporary sources I'm going to oppose. - Hahnchen 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that a review from the time of the game's release would be an extremely valuable piece of information. If anyone's interested in knowing where to get that review, it's issue 30 of Nintendo Power. You can get it on eBay right now (particularly check this) if you're willing to spend a little money for it (I know that might be out of the question, though, since it's basically spending money for volunteer work). Good luck. Ryu Kaze 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. I couldn't find the review on FindArticles.com. Better luck to you guys if you try. Ryu Kaze 00:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • We have a reference to Nintendo Power issue 30 already. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • • Ah, so you do. Well nevermind then. XD The section's just fine. Ryu Kaze 01:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd much rather have Famitsu's take on things. Get that, and I'd support.- Hahnchen 00:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
          • When you say Famitsu do you mean from then or from now? Because honestly I think Nintendo Power is probably better for then, as NP is better known throughout the English speaking community than Famitsu, but if you want Famitsu I'll try to find its review for you. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I found something! Sir Crazyswordsman 01:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
            • I mean from when the game was released. My own problem with Nintendo Power, and other such "official" magazines, is that they have to toe the party line. This is an issue which does not affect third party publications such as Famitsu. (after edit conflict) It would be nice to have the Famitsu score, and the score from Nintendo Power as well. - Hahnchen 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
              • I honestly don't know that what I have will satisfy you, but you may want to take a look. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Gamerankings should give you the rating. But to find the commentary, you're going to have to find someone in Japan who can scour markets for the relevant issue and then translate it. --Zeality 02:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No Famitsu there, but I did find GamePro. Sir Crazyswordsman 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's all good. But note how the reception and critical reaction section for this is the shorter than the sections for other Final Fantasy FAs. If the only reason is that it's older and you don't have access to the print sources which obviously exist, then I'm not going to move, as I don't think it's as good as the others. - Hahnchen 03:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just as an update to the objections, we're looking for print sources by way of WP:CVG Magazine Projects and other avenues. We can also remove the Geocities reference, though I'd rather ensure we have some print before doing so (it's a really important reference, and we're plain unlucky that it's only available on a self-published webpage). We have no estimate on how long it will take to find print sources, so it's up to Raul on whether to remove this for the time being, pass personal judgment on the article's reception section, or leave it on the FAC page while we search. If it is removed, we'll renominate as soon as we can get some material. --Zeality 22:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I've done about five web searches and I can't find much. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is almost there, I just have some qualms.
  • The biggest issue is that the plot summary needs less blow-by-blow and a bit more summary. Picking a paragraph at random...

    Cecil awakens on a beach near Mysidia, where he is met with contempt by the town's wizards for stealing the Water Crystal earlier.[23] However, the Mysidian elder allows Cecil to hold audience with him.[24] The elder notes that to defeat Golbez, Cecil must surrender his dark sword and become a Paladin. Cecil agrees and is asked to climb Mt. Ordeals to complete a trial.[25] He is assisted by twin wizards Palom and Porom, who are secretly ordered by the elder to spy on Cecil to learn if his intentions are pure.[26] While traveling, they encounter and defeat Scarmiglione, Golbez's Fiend of Earth. They also stumble upon Tellah, who is searching for the legendary spell of Meteo to defeat Golbez.[27] Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia. The four warriors take the Serpent Road from Mysidia to Baron. Cecil learns that the engineer Cid was arrested for hiding his airship from the king. At the Baron inn, Cecil finds Yang brainwashed by Baronian solders. Cecil helps Yang recover, and together the five infiltrate the castle. Cecil discovers that the king is actually Caignazzo, Golbez's Fiend of Water.[28] Freed by Cecil, Cid takes the paladin to the Enterprise, his newest airship. Before dying, Caignazzo causes the walls of the castle to move with the intent of crushing Cecil. Palom and Porom petrify themselves to halt the trap.[29]

    With five minutes rewrite, I soaked that down to...

    Cecil awakens on a beach near Mysidia, where he is met with suspicion and derision. In Mysidia, the elder advises Cecil that he must surrender his dark sword and become a Paladin, and to do so he must complete a trial at Mt. Ordeals. The Elder sends twin wizards Palom and Porom along with Cecil, both to help and spy on Cecil. At Mt. Ordeals, the confront and defeat Scarmiglione, Golbez's Fiend of Earth, and encounter Tellah, who is searching for the legendary spell Meteo to defeat Golbez. Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia.

    From there, the four travel to Baron, where they discover that the engineer Cid has been arrested and Yang brainwashed. After rescuing Yang and helping him recover, the five infiltrate the castle, where they discover that the king has been replaced with Caignazzo, Golbez's Fiend of Water, in disguise. The five of them defeat Caignazzo, but before dying, Caignazzo causes the walls of the castle to move with the intent of crushing the party. Palom and Porom petrify themselves to halt the trap, and Cid leads the survivors to the Enterprise, his newest airship.

    And that's without omitting any trivial points, like why Tellah was at Mt. Ordeals or every single boss battle. I realize the goal is comprehensiveness, but given that the rest of the article makes little reference to the plot (unlike with Final Fantasy VII), there's little need to sustain this level of detail. The rest of the article would still make sense even if the plot summary was reduced to...

    "Final Fantasy IV is the story of Cecil, a dark knight of Baron who is betrayed by his nation and eventually leads an ever-changing party of heroes in their effort to defeat the dark lord Golbez, who has co-opted Baron in an effort to collect the elemental crystals."

    Bear in mind I'm not suggesting that, but the rest of the article would still make sense.

  • The bloc of infoboxes below is ugly and unnecessary. The info those infoboxes have is the platform (which is already covered in the prose) and the release date (which can easily be covered in the text; Metal Gear Solid#Release information isn't perfect, but is an example of how this could be done without the need for obtrusive tables.
  • There's no need for a separate image for FFIV Easytype; it's the same cover with different trade dress. I'm also somewhat unhappy with having an image of the Wonderswan image; why do we need to illustrate a version of the game so minor that it only has three sentences in the article?
  • We have two images of interior overhead view, but no image of the overworld. It might be a good idea to replace the Golbez/Kain/Rosa image (which seems kind of unnecessary) with an overworld image.

  This is close, but it's just not quite FA-class yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I should probably get around to doing this this weekend. There has been infobox controversey before, and some have already been removed. I'll get rid of all infoboxes and pictures except for the SNES and GBA ones. Sir Crazyswordsman 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I took the infoboxes away. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I've noted the progress, above. Most of the issues are superficial, but I do strongly feel that the plot summary fails to summarize. This article is 54K, and much of this is plot recap. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Let's compromise. I don't want to get rid of important plot points, but I am finding a way to get rid of subtrivia (for example, I got rid of the Octomam reference). Sir Crazyswordsman 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  (reindent) I'm not toeing a hard line here, I just want to see a bit more effort put into summarizing. Some examples of superfluous details:

  • The mist dragon fight.
  • The fact that Rydia summons Titan, and how exactly it destroys the village.
  • Cecil's and Rydia's exact situation after they wake up. (There's a lot of this; it suffices to just say "...knocked the three unconscious. Once Cecil wakes up he discovers that Kain is missing and the girl is injured, so he takes her to a nearby town, Kaipo."
  • Exact dungeon names. There's a lot of "They travel to the Watery Pass," "They travel to Mt. Ordeals," and so on.
  • Exact modes of travel. "They take a hovercraft," "They take the Serpent Road," etc.

  I could do more, but it really feels like the main threads of the story are being lost in a flurry of detail. Take some time and consider whether a given detail is important to the story as a whole, or at least a particularly memorable moment. Examples like the fact that Rydia was laying on grass, driving a hovercraft around a desert, the entire bit with the Dark Elf's cave (why is that not one sentence?), fighting Dr. Lugae (bosses don't get any more throwaway), most of the Fiend battles, and many other details (I'm listing things again, *sigh*) are just overwhelming the main thread of the plot. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Well the Mist Dragon IS an important boss to the storyline because without it, we would have no Rydia. I guess you could take some of it out. But some of it needs to stay. Sir Crazyswordsman 22:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I took out the references to Titan and town descriptions. "Watery Pass," "Mt. Hobs," "Serpent Road," "Sealed Cave," and the fact that the Dark Elf is protected by a magnetic field are a few of the things I took out. Also, note that minor terms like "Misty Cave" "Baigan," "Old Water Way," "Mom Bomb," and "Twin Harp" are never mentioned. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Mt. Ordeals WILL be kept though, as that is where a major plot point occurrs. I have a question: have you ever played the game? If you have, you should know what's important and what's not. Important locations should stay, and Mt. Ordeals is probably the most important location in the entire game other than Baron. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I did the image replacement you want, and now you should know that now even important figures such as Dr. Lugae and Rubicante are taken out. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Familiar enough such that I could write a plot summary from memory. Mt. Ordeals is a good example where details overwhelm the thread of the story; we're futzing around with the suspicions of the Mysidian townsfolk, the fact that Cecil gets an audience, traveling to Mt. Ordeals, the fact that he meets Scarmiglione, and even why Tellah is at Mt. Ordeals, but the trial itself (the first hint to the events of the third act) is glossed over as "Cecil completes the trials, becomes a Paladin, and returns to Mysidia"?

  I'm finding that the problem is too much "They went here. They did this. Foo joined them. Bar left. Then they went here." This isn't brilliant prose, and it's not useful or particularly interesting summary. The problem seems to be style as much as length and level of detail. I know there's an effort to stay away from getting too interpretive here, but this isn't FA class writing yet. Maybe it might be a good idea to talk to Deckiller and Ryu Kaze about refining the plot summary? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  I'll ask. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

  Deck reworked the paragraphs, and I blended a few sentences together, using different styles of sentence construction here and there while minimizing the use of the passive voice. Sir Crazyswordsman 04:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  My objections are sufficiently dealt with, and I've struck my oppose above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  You still haven't actually votes support on it. Sir Crazyswordsman 23:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: An overall excellent article.GrimRepr39 00:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Excellent prose, good choice of images and a solid amount of references. Fulfills what's expected from a featured article, and is similar to other featured Final Fantasy articles. --TheEmulatorGuy 03:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Summary to date, as this nom is getting pretty lengthy: 3 co-nominating supports, 10 supports, 2 oposes, and 1 neutral. The current tally is therefore 13/2/1. --PresN 20:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks to all! Sir Crazyswordsman 20:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Peer Review

I have been working on this article for quite some time, and now find it good enough to be a featured article. The article uses some text from the Indian Institutes of Technology article (another FA that I had major contribution in writing). I have tried to use as less text from it as possible, at the same time making sure that the article is comprehensive enough to stand on its own. The article uses several self-published sources as its reference, though I have made every attempt to make sure they are used only in the capacity self-published sources are allowed as a reference. Recently, the article had a lot of its references for trivial claims removed, so arranging for missing references won't be a problem. The article uses only free images, with the exception of the institute logo. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support excellent work. It has incorporated the criticism from the FAC of the IITs. Rama's arrow 15:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object:
  • Get rid of the {{inotes}}; they're utterly useless from the reader's perspective, and have been deprecated for some time.
  • The "Student life and culture" section is somewhat lacking in citations.
  • Footnote #19 is pretty cryptic. What does "Water Works Section, IIT Kharagpur" mean in this context? Kirill Lokshin 15:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply. I have taken care of the footnotes. They weren't useful from reader's perspective, but have utility for explaination just like footnotes/endnotes. Since none of them were critical, I have removed them completely. Can you please point out which sentences would require citations. As I said in the first paragraph above, a lot of references for trivial (undisputable) claims have been deleted recently, so restoring them back won't be a problem. The footnote #19 refers to the briefing given by the Head of Water Works section to the students. Any suggestions on how it should be re-written for clarity? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I have added seven refs in the "Student life and culture" section. Please let me know if there are any other outstanding concerns. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That seems fine. I'm not certain to what extent the "briefing" is acceptable as a source, though. Are there recordings or transcripts of it that you could cite? If there's no permanent record, it probably doesn't qualify as a verifiable source. Kirill Lokshin 15:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Update. Removed as ref. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You forgot to remove the second reference to it, so now there's a blank footnote #21. More to the point, though: removing the citation but leaving the statement in the article seems like an utterly senseless thing to do in this case, as it leaves the article containing statements that cannot be verified from a suitable source. Kirill Lokshin 17:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Reply. Cleared the mess. I left the sentence as it is as I thought it wasn't a claim big enough to necessiate a reference. It seems that you think so. So, I have removed the sentence. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Are there any other issues that I can address? I see you are still opposing the FAC, though all the objections raised have been addressed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Nope, no more objections per se. I still think the article is under-cited, but that may just be personal preference rather than something actionable. Kirill Lokshin 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the update. As I said above, at some point of time, the article had as many as 15 more references compared to current revision. The consensus among the editors was that the article is over-cited, and hence nearly 20+ references were removed as trivial. Some of them have been reinstated on your request. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A significant improvement over earlier IIT articles:

• (Would like to see this cited in the lead, so I don't have to go looking for the cite.) "IIT Kharagpur is widely regarded as one of the best engineering institutions in Asia." I found this later, but it's not clear they are saying the same thing? "In the Shanghai Jiao Tong University's Academic Ranking of World Universities, IIT Kharagpur was the only IIT listed among the top 500 universities worldwide.[12]"
• (Committee, or is there a word in India I don't know? All four institutions, or all the four institutions?) The interim report of the committe urged the speedy establishment of all the four institutions
• (Common course structure seems awkward: a common course structure, or common courses?) The first year of B.Tech. has common course structure for all the students.
• Would like to see notable alumni referenced: don't want to open the door to other FAs which don't cite notables.

Overall, it's in good shape. Sandy

• Reply. Thanks for the compliments, though there have been only one IIT article before at FAC. I have taken care of your objections. For the first point, I have changed the sentence to "....IIT Kharagpur is regarded as one of the best engineering institutions in India", and provided a ref for it. I have fixed the minor spelling mistakes in second point, and rephrased the third. I have also added five refs to the Alumni section. Please have a look and tell if more are needed. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Sandy 19:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Possible issues. Sorry for listing so many:

• "Indian educationalists Humayun Kabir and Jogendra Singh constituted a committee". Were they the only two members? If you mean "formed", try that instead.
• The word "committee" is used four times in one short paragraph (first of the history section)
• "persuaded Jawaharlal Nehru... to establish the first institute in West Bengal, that had the highest concentration of industries at the time." Poorly formed sentence—"which" in place of that would be an improvement, but recasting it entirely would be preferable.
• What's a "fresher"?
• Flow issues, especially in the second paragraph of the history section (near the end). The part on the name and inauguration is completely unrelated to the info on the historical building (and that part could use some work... tell a story, not just a sequence of facts)
• The use of italics seems excessive... "director", "deputy director", "board of governors", "wardens"; these are all extremely common and undeserving of special attention.
• Could we link to the currency in the Administration section?
• "comprises of" sounds clumsy; "consists of" is better. Or reverse the order and just use "comprise".
• "with a cumulative cumulative grade point average"... spot the redundant word =).
• In the Campus section, "township" is a little strange—that word to me implies something official, as in a political entity. Is that the case?
• "There are 18 hostels along the Scholars Avenue, that extends from the institute gate to the B." Same problem as before (3rd point)
• What's "defence staff"?
• What's "PGDIT"?
• What's a "lecture class", and why is it different from a normal class?
• "two big auditoriums on either sides." --> "two big auditoriums on either side".
• Is it "guest house" or "guesthouse"? I prefer the former, but be consistent.
• "it would wean them from the benefits they enjoy from the amenities provided by the institute." How about "it would hinder their access to amenities provided by the institute"?
• In "Admissions and academics", shouldn't the reservation policy stuff be together?
• "The first year of B.Tech. has common courses for all the students. The common courses include the basic courses from various departments." The second sentence is almost entirely worthless.
• "from their respective departments, that are known", "programs, that integrate", "engineers and scientists, to learn new technologies"—comma problems.
• What's "worth Rs. 41.70 crore"?
• Words like "indiscipline", "ragging", and "rusticated" need to be replaced.
• Conversion needed for "a height of 20 ft" and other measurements. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply. Thanks for the detailed review. I have addressed nearly all your concerns. Here are the ones that need special mentioning.
  • I have reduced the occurances of "committee" to twice (as against four times).
  • The word "township" is used in the institute's history page. Does it still requires replacement? PS: the page has outdated statistics.
  • I have restricted use of "lecture" to only "lecture halls". "Lecture classes" are now called "classes".
  • I have clarified that its revenue worth Rs. 41.70 crore.
  • I have replaced "indiscipline", though I couldn't see why it would be wrong to use.
  • I have explained "ragging" for worldwide view, though still mention the word in braces as this is the way it is referred to in the sub-continent.
  • I have provided conversion of units to nearest whole numbers.
• Please let me know if there are any more issues. If anything improves the article, we should be thankful for it, not feel sorry :) Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand "Rs. 41.70 crore". I presume it's currency, but why the "crore"? Indiscipline is a word, but isn't used much in my experience. Using it later that paragraph is fine once the context is established, but leading off with it is a bit jarring to me. I would still drop the use of "township" unless there's an explanation somewhere of what it actually means. It's a vague term, making it less than helpful. As for units, which are more common--English or metric? The article goes back and forth: there are km of roads, acres of land, and feet of width. I'm not sure what the convention is for India-related articles, but I expect that it should be metric first, with English in parenthesis. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reply. Thanks for pointing it out. I have been hunting the wrong animal! Anyway, I have corrected it. I have also eradicated the word "township". The units error was a serious one, I admit, but I have fixed that too throughout the article. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• I have addressed all the issues. Are there any more? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• I now support. Only suggestion is that references be added for the Vision 2020 fundraiser, the second paragraph of the Undergraduate education section, and the information at the end of the Student life section (Rangolis, etc.). Some prose improvements could be made, but overall, nicely done. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added references as asked. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I got the article copyedited by a renowned English professor. The article's language is much better now. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good. KnightLago 02:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. No issues. --Antorjal 13:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Comments --
• (the then Chief Minister of West Bengal) -- remove brackets
• (2,100 acres) remove brackets, convert to rounded equivalent metric and put imperial in brackets.
• IIT Kharagpur is particularly famous for its Illumination and Rangoli festival, in addition to Spring Fest, its social and cultural festival and Kshitij its technology festival.

-- cpedit needed

• The first image in =History= needs to be aligned right. The next can be left aligned.
• (USA) --> in the United States
• remove "()" and flow with sentence
• 120km plz follow MoS
• Imperial equivalents needed.
• 1990-2006, nothing eventful has happened?
• is linked to the other IITs' --> linked? odd wording
• (professors, associate professors, and assistant professors) --> flow
• Noticed many such sentences. Please flow as () serve as a break.
• Rs. 100–200 --> all currency related topics need to be linked to US$ for international compatibily coversion. Make sure that in the footnotes you have ..As of...
• The classes are usually held between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m IST. -- trivia, remove
• Locator map needed. Cannibalise & modify from the one at IIT
• The classes are usually held between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m IST.
• for SC and ST students -- makes little sense for non Indian readers
• Hijli Shaheed Bhawan image conflicts with the =Civic amenities= heading. Right align.
• Avoid left aligning images at the start of a section.
• = Sponsored research and industrial consultancy= long title. Shorten
• Government agencies --> government...
• Stub red links

--Anon 23:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for your input. I've fixed most points you raised, but (1) Rs. to USD is not necessary or advisable. Its just something the reader has to figure out, especially as the currency exchange rate keeps changing. For this article we must employ Indian English and this the metric system. The first picture cannot be aligned right as the infobox is in the way. Rama's arrow 00:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Replying to your post: I strongly disagree with your above statements that my suggestions should not be implemented. 1. INR to USD is not necessary? Articles on wikipedia should cater to the international reader, the USD is the closest thing to an international currency today. Instead of making a reader hop on to various sites to figure out the equivalent, our job is to present the facts and information right here. And for the fluctuation of currencies, I have stated above that where the equivalent is given, a footnote should be added to mark the date of conversion (As of). To reinforce my point, this is mentioned in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Conversions, and Indian featured articles such as Indian Railways have implemented it. 2) Secondly, nowhere does it say that Indian English and equivalent imperial units are incompatible. As mentioned above, it is helpful to a reader unfamiliar with the system metric. It is also uncontroversially used in Geography of India. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Units of measurement 3) The picture and the infobox cause a squeeze in the text at the centre. The infobox is not the issue, if both conflict, the image is placed directly below the infobox. I have made the necessary adjustments myself. Regards, --Anon 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there will be a lot of disagreement about the status of USD - why not the Euro or UK pound? Apart from the conflict, this information (INR = USD) is irrelevant to this article, which is why I'm not concerned whether the reader has to hop a few sites to find the USD rate. As it is an Indian institution, the data will be only in INR. I request you to implement the imperial unit substitution, for I'll only get to it tomorrow. Rama's arrow 22:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree with the above statement. I continue to maintain: the USD is the closest thing to an international currency and a lot of international monetary statistics are calculated using the USD rather other currencies such as Euro. If your concerned with the others, please do remember that stats like GDP, GNP, Balance of payment etc. are all stated in USD. Well, anyways this is not the appropriate forum to discuss the correct currency. Secondly, the INR-USD onversion has been relatively stable, and can be easily updated every six months or so without too much of a change. I hope the nominator can implement these changes. Regards, --Anon 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

GDP, GNP etc. are economic data where such conversions are deemed vital - its ok to provide USD when discussing the Economy of India. But this article merely discusses fees and donations. There is no need to add irrelevant data which has to be changed periodically - for the trouble editors here have to take, the reader can find out the USD value in less than 1 min thru Google. Rama's arrow 17:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed to Object: And who determines if it is ok to provide data to articles such as the Economy of India and not here? There is no definitive statement or policy here on wikipedia that states where such conversions are not applicable. My opposition has merit as it mentioned in the Manual of Style. I repeat, the conversions are not volatile that merit frequent updates. Anyways in such cases we never convert to the exact equivalent figure, but the nearest approximate round figure. And a reader should not jump to google five or six times in an article if he wants to find out an equivalent. A featured article should be helpful to a reader, not the other way round, and is in no certain ways "irrelevant". And besides, conversions are cheap, don't cost more than half a kb. --Anon 00:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Including conversions here would be redundant, requiring that more than one article (Indian Rupee and this one) be updated every time the exchange rate changes. I have linked two of the Rs. abbreviations to Indian Rupee, where exchange rates to several common currencies are given. The "cost" of a conversion isn't the number of kbs, it's the amount of time spent updating. Also, regarding GDP etc., those numbers are usually fixed (once the 2005 GDP is calculated it doesn't change) and thus a direct conversion to 2005 dollars (which are also fixed for all intents and purposes), for example, is appropriate. Here, however, the Rs. values can fluctuate, and the exchange rate can fluctuate, because we're referring to a general time period. As such, a simple link to the currency should suffice. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 01:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, updation of content is what wikipedia is noted for as time progresses. Having dynamic (but non volatile) equivalents does not impede the readability of articles, nor can it be called redundant. I don't see why we should be afraid of updation for a single article which aims to set itself amongst the encyclopedia's best. If that was the case, articles such as Economy of India should never be put up on FAC as it calls for too many variables and figures to be updated. On a related topic, there are also many featured articles that quote the nominal value of the dollar some time in history, with the current equivalent of the same amount. (eg. Glacier National Park (US)). This is extremely helpful to a reader to gauge the metrics as of today. I'm not asking for anyone to do a daily or monthly update of the rates, a biannual or annual update should be more than enough as long as we quote the date the conversion was done. --Anon 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If every page that uses a semi-obscure currency contained a conversion to dollars or euros or whatever, the number of pages that would have to be updated regularly would be exceedingly high. Editors' efforts can be more useful in creating new content, rather than updating information that is already present in regularly updated articles on the currency itself. Wikilinks make the exchange rate available just one click away. The example of Economy of India isn't analogous—it is a central article that of course must be updated with new information that is directly related to the economy of India. IIT-KGP, however, is a completely distinct subject from the exchange rate between Indian Rupees and USD, and thus the information should be linked to, not included. I would make the same argument for the Glacier National Park case, assuming that a chart exists somewhere on WP that demonstrates how the value of a dollar has changed through history. However, I don't see such a chart anywhere, and thus assume that the conversion was directly pulled from a source, not calculated based on an "exchange rate", and as such it's fine as is. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you choose to object on a trivial point but I respect your opinion. Rama's arrow 00:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you saw it that way, but I changed to object as none of my comments were taken care of, or replied to after two days. I have not stated that I am objecting on this particular point. Regards, --Anon 03:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed all the concerns raised by you (Anon), except for the locator map. It could be easily arranged, but I am not sure if it is needed. Locator maps are needed for cities/towns, and not for institutions. A quick look at some of the institutes/buildings like University of Michigan, Cornell University, or even Buckingham Palace drew a blank. I went through WikiProject Universities, and that too does not mention placing locator maps. The article already has {{CoorHeader|22|02|00|N|87|11|00|E|type:landmark}}. Now coming to the "missing" history. I have added some more history. Here's something I wish to discuss before adding. Since 1990, IIT Kharagpur started offering dual degrees. I can mention that if you wish. The IIT's golden jubilee celebration in 2001-02 is also very famous, but I feel it would be too much trivia to add (this can be added if you find it important). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• weak support. Rama's is correct. And I think the US dollars in the text should be removed and that objection is not actionable: adding the currency conversion makes the article unreliable. Besides, the fact that some very poor 3rd world countries uses US dollars, does NOT mean it is an S.I. unity on currencies, it is very far from that. I don't know what makes you think like that, you should travel more. The article needs better style (layout, wikilinks, make the pictures more colourful, etc.) that is why my support is weak. -Pedro 19:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.999...

Nomination I feel that this article should be nominated because it extremely extensive, provides a wealth of information, and we haven't really had a math-related FA in a while. --Captain538 02:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• CommentSupport I don't think my math skills are up to doing a peer review of this article, but it appears well referenced, and it is definitely well-written, charming, even. I think I'll stick around and see what happens, but I'm disposed towards support.--Paul 02:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wow! Okay, let's see where this goes. I'd especially like to hear ideas about the article's organization, length, and level of detail. I don't think the prose is ready yet, but if anyone has constructive criticism, I'll get right on it. The content of the article is almost complete as far as I'm personally concerned, although there are a few more small history- and education-related details I've yet to add. Melchoir 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but sort out 1. the position of the calculator picture (in my - Firefox - display it covers some of the text) and 2. the one "citation needed" tag (it is about the number of topics on a maths newsgroup). Excellent work otherwise, however, and really nicely referenced. Batmanand | Talk 09:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 1. The calculator picture looks fine in my browsers. Could you describe what it covers or take a screenshot? Melchoir 17:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

OK I have now tried three times to upload a screenshot of it but the Upload File thing keeps screwing me over; basically, it is covering a small portion of the text above it in my browser. Anyone having this problem? Batmanand | Talk 13:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you could try applying some of the HTML/CSS tricks and templates at Wikipedia:Picture tutorial and see if one of them works in "Show preview". Melchoir 16:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh, the calculator picture has been removed now, and I'm tired of promoting it. Whatever. Melchoir 16:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • 2. ...fixed! Melchoir 17:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the usual notation for this would be 0.9 with a little dot above the 9, to show that it's recurring. It would be nice to see that in the opening sentence, but I don't actually know how to produce it on Wikipedia. SteveRwanda 12:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The notation that I remember from school is . Jeltz talk 13:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the past, editors have objected to including a math-mode picture like that in the middle of a sentence.

There is at least one other alternative demonstrated at eswiki using the font tag: "0,<font style="text-decoration:overline">9</font>" generates "0,9". Is that good enough? Melchoir 17:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly looks nice, but I prefer the 0.999... form to get the point across to non math wizards.--Paul 17:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• One objection to the title is that who is going to search for "0.999... = 1", or even worse: "0,9 = 1"? Is there a name for this identity? Also, are the notes in the correct format? They refer to authors in the references. Don't we suggest a full cite the first time a reference is used, alowing reversion to author & page number in subsequent cites? --Paul 18:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think SteveRwanda is only suggesting that we insert another notation in the opening, not that it replace the existing notation or the article title. I'm not aware of a name for the identity, alas. As for the notes, I think there are some advantages to the current format, especially when there are so many notes and so many references. Melchoir 18:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object (but I'm something of an ignoramus when it comes to maths, so I'm happy to be overridden/ignored). First of all, this seems to me to be a fork of Recurring decimal. Aren't they one and the same? Secondly, I'm not sure this level of depth is even within Wikipedia's scope. Is such deep analysis the domain of an enyclopedia or should it be on Wikibooks? --kingboyk 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well... In mathematics, 0.999… is unique among recurring decimals (that start with 0) in that it represents an integer; this fact has an application in the first paragraph of 0.999...#Applications, and one author also argues that it is relevant psychologically; see the first bullet point in 0.999...#In education. The proofs are unique in that many of them would require substantial modification to work for other recurring decimals, and the ambiguous-subdivision proof wouldn't make sense. Only slightly more generally, recurring decimals with repeating nines are unique because they represent numbers which also have a second, more standard representation. Educationally, 0.999… is different from other recurring decimals because students don't accept it; it may be the single most misunderstood concept in mathematics. And for Wikipedia's purposes, 0.999… is special just because there exist sources that single it out for study. It is neither a trivial matter, nor does it involve original research, to specialize one's focus to the single recurring decimal 0.999…; the sources do it for us. I realize that Recurring decimal needs some help, but ideally the relationship between the two articles could follow Wikipedia:Summary style. Melchoir 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what parts of the article you're worried about for depth. Generally, my feeling is that Wikipedia should be as in-depth as possible while still following the content policies. This article isn't the result of crazed editors taking a simple concept and running with it; the ideas it summarizes are a cross-section of what's actually out there in the literature. And the article doesn't bleed dry its subject for details, either; there's still a lot more one can learn by following the internal links and looking up the references. Melchoir 18:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support well written article Trashking 21:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I don't like the ibid-like references (I know it is not the same, but for a casual user it is the same). When a user is reading the article and comes to, in example, the Applications section, reference 42, he will click it and be carried to a line that says Leavitt 1984 p.301. He will try to go upwards, finding nothing, and then downwards, until finding The College Mathematics Journal. By the time he finds the reference, he has lost his reference number. I don't like the restricted-access texts, but I don't object them as they are acceptable. -- ReyBrujo 05:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This is a well referenced and well written article. Wikipedia needs more articles like this. Mercenary2k 08:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object - A few things spring to mind:
  • As I said above, the proper mathematical notation for this number is 0.9 in American usage and in British (see here for a reference for this). I know the latter one looks bad and can ruin sentence structure but official titles should appear somewhere in the lead. — OK, I've altered it slightly again, and I'm happy with this. SteveRwanda 13:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How's this? Melchoir 16:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Or this, for that matter? Melchoir 22:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure the lead is long enough, and probably needs to summarise the content of the article more thoroughly.
    • True... Melchoir 17:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • ...how's this then? Melchoir 22:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The prose needs a copy edit - it reads more like a lecture than an encyclopaedia article at present. Phrases like: "a sometimes mysterious concept" don't really belong here.
    • comment I like the prose, its light and fun. Much of Wikipedia is seriously dull. A bit of irreverent sparkle is a good thing.--Paul 16:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's never been a terribly popular sentence; I've just removed it. The tone of the article is admittedly inconsistent, so I'm not sure exactly which part you think sounds like a lecture. Could you please point out a specific section or sections that are bad, and possibly a section you think is good? Melchoir 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are there so many non-inline reference books listed at the bottom? Does each one offer something that the others don't? It would be nice to see page numbers as well, since most of them are general books in which 0.999... is presuambly only a small section.
    • Yes, the books do offer different material. This might be surprising, given that so many of them are intended for the same purpose, but there are many different approaches to the real numbers and even more approaches to decimal expansions. This article attempts to address all of the approaches that are relevant to 0.999…, but a given textbook is usually more interested in getting to the truth as quickly as possible by its own preferred route. As for page numbers, I guess I could do that... is it important to you? Melchoir 17:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

      I may need a second opinion on this... It seems to me that these general references should be a list of books which anyone wanting to know more about this subject can go and borrow from their local library. As it stands they're going to end up with an enormous pile of books, without any clue which part of them to read in order to further their understanding of this mysterious 0.999... business. I think further reading on the in depth stuff, such as Cauchy sequences, can be obtained either from that article or from the inline refs. SteveRwanda 13:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

      Oh, we appear to have a misunderstanding. The sources listed under "References" all have inline citations in the article. Melchoir 06:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

      Ah, I see. I hadn't realised that. It seems a slightly odd way of doing it as it doubles the amount of space the references take up, but no matter. I'll have another look at the lead and the prose when I have some time... Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anyway, I think by and large the article is good and I'm still very new in the world of analysing articles so I will be very happy to defer to others' opinions and withdraw these comments if people feel they're unjust! Cheers — SteveRwanda 10:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• StrongObject. Despite the hard work that went into this article, I find it quite unsatisfying: it seems to be written by mathematicians for the entertainment of other mathematicians, and at a level appropriate for advanced college students if not graduate students. Given that, the whole article concept is especially odd: people able to read an article at this level are already quite familiar with the 0.999... = 1 idea. The article goes on and on about how this concept fits into a variety of areas in mathematics, without ever giving an idea why that is important to explore. It feels to me like this article is really about the convergence of sequences and limits, only with the example 0.999... = 1 filled in everywhere. This article is, at best, an entertaining article for math geeks (like me, BTW -- I found the section on p-adics rather interesting, as I've always been a little shaky on p-adics)... and at worst, a rambling essay. At the very least, this article needs a major restructuring, and the real topic needs to be made clear, and all the text needs to be clear in its relevance to that topic. To me, it's very far away from being a featured article. Sorry. :( Mangojuice^talk 15:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, parts of the article are hopelessly esoteric. But every section of the article has been ordered to make sure that those parts occur last. The "Proofs" arc, consisting of the first three sections on the meaning of 0.999… and why it equals 1, starts with "Digit manipulation" at a middle-school level; "Infinite series and sequences" is at an advanced high-school level; "Nested intervals and least upper bounds" starts into university territory; and finally "Rational constructions" demands a mathematics degree. In "Generalizations", the first paragraph is obvious; the second is clear to anyone who's been introduced to alternate bases; for the next, non-integer bases occur in recreational mathematics; and we only get into topology at the end. "Other number systems" is just intrinsically hopeless; sorry! "Applications" begins by messing around with 1/7; the next section includes the magic word "fractal", so at least it should pique the laity's interest; and again the most abstract bit is at the end. "Skepticism" requires almost no background at all. There's a lot of material that's understandable for readers who aren't familiar with 0.999… equaling 1. Melchoir 17:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, I actually very much liked the Skepticism section: that's interesting and is probably much more important to the subject than a lot of the other subsections are. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree. We can talk about promoting that section up the article, if that's where you're going. Melchoir 20:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • About giving an idea why it is important to explore the subject: perhaps I can improve the lead section in that direction... Melchoir 17:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • (done) Melchoir 22:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The real topic of the article is simply everything one can say about 0.999…. It's long and varied; what part do you think needs its relevance to 0.999… clarified? Melchoir 17:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Let me put it another way. Everything that's written in the article is relevant to 0.999... = 1. But some of it (a lot of it) seems like a digression: the point of the section about the p-adics, for instance, is to talk about the p-adic integers, and how they relate to 0.999... = 1. To give an analogy, consider an article about George Washington that spent most of its space talking about other people for whom George Washington was important. All the information is relevant, but the article has ceased to really be about George Washington: it's more like an article about George Washington as a role model, or something. That's what I mean when I say I'm not really sure what this article is all about. Maybe a different title? I don't know. Mangojuice^talk 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I have two answers for this objection: First, the mathematics answer: Nothing in mathematics is interesting or worth investigating by itself. Ideas gain meaning through their relationships with other ideas; objects become useful through their interactions with other objects. (In fact, there's a tradition, at least in the field of algebra, that the best way to investigate an object is through its interactions.) 0.999… is a perfect example. By itself, there's nothing to say except "#redirect 1 (number)". But if you're going to have an article titled "0.999...", this is it.

My second answer is editorial: that even the digressions in this article are interconnected, and therefore not really digressions. The p-adic bit immediately connects back to its parent section by discussing 1-0.999…, and it mentions educational issues twice: 0.000…1 and the seventh-grader. The brief mention of the definition of the p-adics contrasts with the Cauchy sequence section above, and two of the three proofs that …999 = -1 are variations on proofs that 0.999… = 1 given above. Melchoir 20:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(1): By reductio ad absurdum, that's true. But in reality, it's not that hard to explain why topics within mathematics are interesting. See Group (mathematics) for what I consider a good example of laying out the context of the mathematical topic and giving an idea to a lay reader why it should interest them, and why it has interested others. There may be a limit to how well that can be done in this case, but I do think it can be done better. (2): I don't mean to say the article doesn't have coherence. I think it does. I think, though, that the article isn't exactly about "0.999...", it's more about concepts in mathematics related to "0.999...", especially real numbers and convergence of sequences. An article on the topic of "0.999...", I would expect, would describe the main question, and give the importance of it, and some of the history of attempts to understand the issue, and other issues closely related to it. The digressions have to be controlled: as an example, the "Dedekind cuts" subsection works out the concept of Dedekind cuts to the point where it feels like Dedekind cuts is the topic (though there is an article on that topic already, and it's already been linked), whereas it might suffice to say, simply, that the numbers 1 and 0.999... define the same Dedekind cut (incidentally, I think there's a bit of an error there: the description lapses back to thinking of 0.999 as a Cauchy sequence, doesn't it? For Dedekind cut's, I'd say that any rational number less than 1 is also less than .999..., and (obviously) vice versa.) Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I would love to be able to write about the importance of 0.999… and its history. Unfortunately, it isn't important, and it has no history. I'm not kidding. Mathematicians don't care about 0.999…. It isn't good for anything. Even for the scant applications listed in the article, there are much, much better ways to prove the results. No one knows who first wrote down "0.999…", or who first decided it was 1. There has never been a disagreement between mathematicians on the issue. It was never an unsolved problem, and it hasn't motivated any research. I say all this not because I lack an imagination, but because I have dug through three research libraries, every possible search on every search engine I know, and countless bookstores, and there is simply nothing else to say about 0.999…. There are a couple minor variations on the cited ideas, but what you see is the length and breadth of the topic.

I'm sorry. We can shuffle content around, we can summarize or elaborate ideas, and we can build a much better lead section, but objections about missing content can't be addressed.

About Dedekind cuts, please try reading that section again. The first sentence is the only sentence that builds the idea of Dedekind cuts, and it's already summarized to the point where it's mathematically inadequate. The first five sentences read: "Dedekind cuts. 1. Decimals. 0.999…. 0.999… = 1." It gets to the point really quickly. If we made it any briefer, it wouldn't be a proof. Melchoir 21:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead section; I hope it speaks to you somehow. Melchoir 22:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right, the Dedekind cuts are introduced rather minimally, if you are to give a proof (though I still think the proof takes 0.999... to be defined via a Cauchy Sequence. A proof really relying on Dedekind cuts would be to say that if (a/b) < 1, then note that 1-(a/b) >= 1/b > 1/10^b, so (a/b) < 1 - 1/10^b which is clearly less than 0.999... since it's less than a terminating version.) Anyway, I'm striking the "strong" part of my objection: what I see here is more a failure of being clear in the writing and structure than a lack of material. I do think the connection between the "Applications" and 0.999... is clear, but it doesn't seem to relate much to the 0.999... = 1 question, so it seems a bit tangential. Similarly, the section on p-adics (cool as it is) also seems a bit tangential, though this article presents a good opportunity for introducing the p-adic numbers, which don't get enough exposure in general. I like the new lead a bit better, but I think we should lose that "has been taught in textbooks for centuries" bit unless there's a direct source on it (it sounds vaguely peacockish to me). Bring the Skepticism section forward, it helps motivate why all those proofs are given. And I think Zeno's paradox should be mentioned earlier; it gives a bit of historical context (it might be worth giving a brief history of the development of understanding of convergent series). Also, the narrative needs to be connected a bit better. It seems to me that the important thing is for the proofs to address different notions of understanding of what 0.999... is -- is it simply an infinite decimal? The limit of a sequence? The article tries to do this, but it isn't that clear, and the section headers speak more to mathematicians than the less informed: for instance "Rational constructions" might be better as "Concepts of real numbers". Two nitpicky points: the equation in the p-adics section should be redone in full-equation style, it shows up funny on my computer. Also, surely there is an article somewhere on nested intervals and the nested interval theorem, isn't there? Those shouldn't be redlinks. Mangojuice^talk 18:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Now you're speaking my language! I can act on most of these suggestions, but it'll take some time and probably some discussion on the talk page. Melchoir 06:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, no, the Dedekind cut proof is perfectly okay, and it works as stated without any sequences, limits, or epsilons. On the other hand, I like the simplicity of your idea better, so I'll put it in. Richman never specifies exactly how one should finish off the equality of the Dedekind cuts, considering it obvious, so there's plenty of room to manuever. As an added bonus, the whole argument now fits in a single paragraph. Melchoir 22:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reordered and renamed some sections; hopefully this deals with Applications being tangential, Skepticism being too late, and the section on constructions being opaque. The connecting prose is now weaker, not stronger, but it should be easier to fix. Melchoir 17:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed the issues relating to history with these edits. I think the body echoes the intro enough that the latter doesn't need citations of its own. Melchoir 05:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indents) I think things look better now, but I'm still concerned about two things: I think the p-adics section is a digression, and I think the applications section is either actually off-topic, or its connection to the 0.999...=1 issue needs to be clarified. Section titles need to do a better job of setting up the narrative: I'm still not sure when I read "digit manipulation" what that section is really about (which is rudimentary proofs that 0.999...=1). Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we still have to do a better job of setting up the sections. For the p-adics, I've already tried to explain, here and in the article, how it's a natural outgrowth of 0.999…. Maybe I should put it this way: the Skepticism section states that students expect a last 9, even though there are infinitely many 9s in 0.999…; and students' expectations are sometimes borne out in other number systems. If, after all that, the article didn't discuss …999, something would be missing.

In an encyclopedic article about X, the applications of X can't be off-topic. I've tried to make it clearer: [14]. Melchoir 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, which equation were you talking about that you wanted displayed apart? Melchoir 19:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the one right before citation number 39. Mangojuice^talk 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Uh... that one is already in math-mode and on a line of its own:

I suppose I don't know what "redone in full-equation style" means. Melchoir 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Huh! You're right! I'm surprised; the font looks entirely different to me than some of the other equations, I guess, because the stuff is relatively simple. For me the \cdot and \cdots show up as boxes. I reformatted to match the equation in the Infinite sequences and series section. Font is still different but it's okay as long as the symbols show up. Mangojuice^talk 14:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Why would you want this to be a Featured Artcile anyway? What difference does a symbolic gesture of recognition by people who know nothing about mathematics and a little star on the upper-right hand corner of the article make to anything? Why are Featured Articles about abstruse topics in mathematics important to Wikipedia? --Francesco Franco 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  That is a pretty close-minded view of Wikipedia, if I may say so without it being taken as an insult. Wikipedia aims to offer useful introductory information of high quality to casual users. Featured articles are understood to be that, and if anyone feels an article is of high standard, he is most welcomed to nominate. Why we have featured articles about an anime character when only children know who he is? Why we have featured articles about a painting that probably very few know about its existence, lest see it? Why we have featured articles about events that may be important only for a country? Or Star Wars, Pokemon or some TV show? -- ReyBrujo 19:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Who decides what Wikipedia should ot should not aim to offer. Most of my articles are non-introductory information of high quality intended for people with a realtively advanced education. You're missing my point compltely. Why is it important to the nominators of this article that it be a Featured Article? What does it mean? I already have two fatrured articles. What did I get out of it? Nothing. several people shit on them, vandalized then and insulted them when they were omn the main page anyway. What's the point?

Ah, you are not against this featured article, but against featured articles in general. Well, this is not the place to discuss that. -- ReyBrujo 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I like ReyBrujo's answer. If you want something more concrete, there's this: if the article gets Featured, it'll take a turn on the Main Page. Melchoir 20:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Who cares? --Francesco Franco 07:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • We're not even living in the same universe, much less communicatin. Never mind.--Francesco Franco 07:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Now that 2a (lead section) has been sorted out, I think the article meets all the requirements. I'm out for the weekend, so I hope I've said whatever needed to be said for now. Melchoir 01:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very well done article. The Wookieepedian 08:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per above.--DaveOinSF 16:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well referenced and descriptive article. --Donar Reiskoffer 07:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Excellent article Coolguy1368 2 October 2006 9:41
• Support Nicely done. We need more FAs of this level of sophistication and educational substance.--Francesco Franco 17:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Clear, direct, written with an eye to history, pedagogically useful and with good use of citation devices. I would like to see those redlinks addressed; from this site-specific Google search, it looks like WP is light on nested interval coverage. Anville 21:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Excellent math article, and acessable to the layman. Borisblue 14:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'm very concerned about the lead sentence

These ideas are false in the real numbers, as can be proven by explicitly constructing the reals from the rational numbers, and such constructions can also prove that 0.999… = 1 directly.

I think it's misleading and missing the point. It's not that the misconceptions are false, it's that they're misconceptions. In other words it's not so much that 0.999... can be proven to be equal to 1 by construction. What's important is that when you construct the reals from the rationals in the usual way, then the reals denoted by 1 and by 0.999... are identical. The next sentence probably adds to the confusion even more. We should try to get one of these vocal skeptical students to peer-review this article! Pascal.Tesson 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem. What's the operative difference between a false idea and a misconception? And what's the significance of emphasizing "in the usual way"? Melchoir 17:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I did write that in a haste. But here's a more coherent objection. These ideas are false in the real numbers, as can be proven by explicitly constructing the reals from the rational numbers assumes that the meaning of 0.999... is somehow independent of the construction and that the construction just proves that this number is 1. But it's more like the other way around: the formal notation 0.999... only has a meaning once you construct the reals as limits of rational sequences. And by that construction, the reals represented by the notation 0.999... and 1 are equal. See what I mean? Pascal.Tesson 22:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, it's not true that you have to construct the reals from the rationals in order to give meaning to 0.999…; see any of the half-dozen equivalent developments back in the "Calculus and analysis" section. Second, the behavior of the real numbers is indeed independent of whichever construction of them one chooses to work with. Melchoir 01:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Question. Has a move to 0.999... = 1 already been suggested? I would support it. CG 19:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Not as such, but something like it was considered when the article was moved from Proof that 0.999... equals 1 to 0.999... about a month ago. Melchoir 20:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support - Great article —Mets501 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jake Gyllenhaal

This article failed its first nom for whatever reasons with 4-2 votes in support. Since then, several editors have been tinkering and improving it(quite drastically, really), and so I am renomming it now the article is once more stable.Dev920 21:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Previous FAC:Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jake Gyllenhaal/archive1

Support Per previous FAC

†he Bread 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This is bad form. You can't just renominate something 3 days after it failed its first nom. Yes there were about 2 dozen edits in those intervening days, but it seems way too hasty to me. I supported this article the first time around, but I would prefer if you took a deep breath, withdrew the nomination, submitted it for peer review to get a wider assessment of opinions and renominated this thing in a month or so. Patience is a virtue.--DaveOinSF 17:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave, the previous FAC had 4-2 votes in favour - and the remaining issues the other two had was the prose. The FAC, despite having consensus support, was failed by Raul (who still has not answered my request for explanation): in the intervening time this prose issue has now been dealt with by you and other editors. This article is a great article, it should have passed last time round, and opposing a deserving FAC on the grounds that it is too early seems unfair. There seems little point in delaying an FAC because it is customary, if the article requires no more work. WP:IAR and all that. Dev920 (Tory?) 18:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me put it another way. Please withdraw this nomination. I am asking you to. I and some others have been working on it a bit in the last few days and will continue to do so. I don't think I am yet comfortable in presenting it to the community. Please hold off.--DaveOinSF 19:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree with DaveOinSF. It was de-listed because Raul judged there to be significant unresolved objections. I agree, there are lots. And not only is relisting it so fast not appropriate, but this is not very close to FA quality. The overall quality of the sources is very poor. We need reliable sources, not gossip columns and blogs. Please go find better stuff. Specifically, the speculation in the last paragraph of his career section would have to be supported by particularly reliable sources, and those don't cut it. Same with the gossip column stuff about romantic links. Also agree the stuff on his sister should be removed, it has very little to do with him. Wtf cares if his sister is engaged to someone he acted with. It just doesn't meet the importance threshhold. - Taxman ^Talk 17:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fed up with this. I give up. Withdrawing FAC and leaving Wikipedia for time being. Dev920 (Tory?) 21:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Certainly not the intended effect. There is a lot of good work there, it's just not at FA level yet, something reserved for the best articles on Wikipedia. I apologize if I was harsh and if you'd like any help determining if it's ready to pass FAC, let me know. - Taxman ^Talk 23:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Wikipedia has integrated itself into my life and I can't get away. Bugger. But I am tired of having to constantly deal with criticism from people who think they can be as harsh and as dismissive as they like as long as they don't swear or ad hominem. I'm going to find a less populated corner of the wiki to edit. Let me know when it's FA standard and I'll nom for the third bloody time, even though it should have passed the first. Dev920 (Tory?) 19:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What you're missing is when pointing out what an article needs to improve we are working to help improve the quality of the articles on the project too. We're not attacking you, just noting what the article needs. If I didn't point out the deficiencies in the article then you'd never know what standards are expected. I know you think it should have passed before, but it's not ready now and wasn't then. It's your baby, so I understand you think favorably of it. Again, sorry my approach rubbed you the wrong way. - Taxman ^Talk 14:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your userpage, people are not pointing out the deficiencies of the article, they tend to use "this is not very/even close to FA quality." without ever explaining why. Clearly, given there were four supports last nomination, others disagree. There seem to be a large faction of editors who hang around on WP:FA and slam articles because they "want to maintain standards" but their standards are far in excess of what WP:FAC actually says. Yes, this article used to be my "baby", but given the way others have now edited it (and I would like to point out that almost every editor's contribution since my original nomination has now been reverted by other editor, with the exception of some section headers) it's not anymore - in any case, I wasn't defending it because I wrote it, I was defending it because it's a damn good article and no-one who has slammed it or announced it is nowhere FA standard has actually been able to say what it wrong with it, and it seems people would rather assume bad faith than reconsider what they are saying. Go on. Prove me wrong. Edit it to the standard that you think is FA, and I will bow to the clear superiority of the FA hangers-on from now on.Dev920 (Tory?) 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, that wasn't what I meant to say. What I wanted to point out was that no-one has voted oppose to this nomination, and DaveOinSF stopped editing the article on the 29th September, so I assume he has finished whatever he was planning. If nothing but support doesn't constitute consensus, I don't know what is. Dev920 (Tory?) 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Support per previous FAC.--Francesco Franco 12:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Meets the FA criteria, has a good flow, lots of references, no spelling errors, etc. — Wackymacs 08:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Macfarlane Burnet

A comprehensive and balanced biography that covers all the most relevant parts of Burnet's career. --Peta 01:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support well-written and thorough article on an interesting figure in the history of biology. No more nitpicks that I can find. Opabinia regalis 01:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Looks very good. I would suggest a different formating for the two indented quotes in "Immunology" though (maybe Template:Cquote). Sloan21 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Rebecca 01:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support; a couple minor things though:

• "Burnet wrote widely on the topic of human biology after his retirement; some of his ideas were ahead of their time, and others were disputed by the scientific community." Doesn't "being ahead of their time" mean that they aren't accepted? Thus, this sentence is equivalent to "Burnet wrote widely on the topic of human biology after his retirement; some of his ideas were not accepted, and others were disputed by the scientific community." Seems redundant to me, and suggests that none of his ideas were accepted (though perhaps this is intended—if so, make it explicit).
• I'm having difficulty with the following sentence, "In 1966 Boyer Lecture on human biology, provided a conceptual framework for sustainable development, 21 years later the definition provided by the Brundtland Commission was almost identical." Perhaps the following is meant: "In the 1966 Boyer Lecture on human biology, he provided a conceptual framework for sustainable development; 21 years later the definition provided by the Brundtland Commission was almost identical."

Excellent work! --Spangineer^es (háblame) 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have fixed the sections you mentioned. --Peta 00:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very nice. Sandy 00:20, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support (but I declare a contribution in copy-editing part of it a while ago). I'll run over it again this weekend. Good work. Tony 03:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Schellenberg

Self nomination. I would like to see if it meets the FA criteria. Any comments about this would be appreciated so any concerns raised with this article can be addressed in another, much larger article, which I have nearly completed. Thank you. Raymond Palmer 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support; all the issues raised in the military history peer review have been resolved. (Note also the military history A-Class review.) Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support, a very nice article!!! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment There are 50+ inline citations, but none at all in the "Cultural references" section, even though that section contains excerpts from text. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 22:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm, interesting point. The source is given explicitly in the text (Addison's poem The Campaign), so that's not a problem per se; but I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a citation to some published version of the poem, to aid readers looking for it. Kirill Lokshin 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Terrific article. Great job.UberCryxic 02:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm also a bit concerned about "Cultural references". It actually provides just one cultural reference, without indepth analysis and without inline citations.--Yannismarou 06:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment wonderful article I too find the cultural references a touch concerning and wonder as to whether it's even sufficiently relevant to the subject to warrant inclusions. The current version needs to be supported with a cite as its a commentary bordering on orginal research. The prose/layout of this section I found a little disconcerting on first read, please consider making the poems prose ditinguishable from its explaination. Can you drop a note on my talk page if you reconsider this section in any way because without this I would have supported. Gnangarra 13:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support changed to support, the modification to cultural improves that section. I too noticed that Count Jean d'Arco was a red link but thats not impacting on this article, suggest that you delink the name maybe put it on the list of requested articles. Gnangarra 23:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oooo I had a request that I forgot about. It's not going to impact my vote, but can you make a stub article on Count Jean d'Arco? It seems weird to have a redlink for one of the main commanders.UberCryxic 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Several people have commented that Jean d'Arco is only a red-link. I cannot find any details whatsoever on him. None of my books nor the Internet have any information - not even enough for a stub! Can anyone help?

In depth analysis Yannismarou? I hope your not expecting a literary critical appreciation of Joseph Addison poetry ; ) Finding other cultural references for this minor battle is proving all but impossible. Would it be best to delete the Cultural Ref section altogether?. Thanks all for the feedback Raymond Palmer 21:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm ... I wouldn't say delete. This is not a major issue, but this section remains for me a bit problematic. In any case, this is not an important obstacle for FAC. And that's way I don't opppose, but I just express a concern.--Yannismarou 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment more a thought, why not rename the cultural references section to Heroic couplet reduced it to a subsection of Aftermath Gnangarra 02:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support - the photos seem a teensy bit too large, but that's your call. Dev920 (Tory?) 09:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Support This seems to be a great article.Maxflight 01:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Choess, who found a German article on d'Arco and translated it, our elusive friend is no longer a red-link. Raymond Palmer 00:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonhard Euler

I feel this article is comprehensive and adequately cited, and looks nothing at all the way it did during its first nom (archive1). I'll be relatively free in the next week or so to respond to comments, so I welcome any input. Borisblue 02:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Support as nominator. Borisblue 19:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Please fix your refs, and your layout should conform to WP:GTL. Sandy 03:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  Wow, I can't believe I've been in this projct this long and have not seen WP:FN. Thanks for the input Sandy! I'm going to bed right now, but fixing the refs will be the first thing on my to-do list tomorrow. Borisblue 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've fixed the refs, and the last sections have been rearranged to conform with WP:GTL. Borisblue 23:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is well referenced, but it might benefit from one more run through, to tighten up the prose and add a few inline cites.

• This work wasn't very influential however, it was said that "for musicians it was too advanced in its mathematics and for mathematicians it was too musical." Italics should be used sparingly; it's not necessary to italicize quotes. Also, the weasle words "it was said that" should be eliminated; the statement has a citation, it should say who said that.
• Needs to be cited: He is considered to be the preeminent mathematician of the 18th century and one of the greatest of all time; he is also one of the most prolific, with collected works filling over 60 volumes.
• Redundancies in the lead: Euler developed many important concepts and proved numerous lasting [mathematical] theorems in diverse areas of mathematics, from [areas including] calculus, to number theory to [and] topology. In the course of this work h He introduced much of modern mathematical terminology, for instance defining the fundamentally important concept [such as the definition] of a mathematical function.[1]
• Skipping further down the article, to a section in the middle, "There is a very famous anecdote inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religon." is awkward. Very famous is redundant. Euler's arguments with secular philosphers over religion inspired a famous anecdote.
• More weasle words: It has been estimated that it would take eight hours of work per day for 50 years to copy it all by hand. (by whom, name the person).
• Stubby sentences: A lot of mathematical notation in use today was introduced by Euler. Euler introduced the notation f(x) to describe a function. Additionally, he invented the notation for the trigonometric functions that is currently in use.
  • Euler introduced much of the mathematical notation in use today, such as the notation f(x) to describe a function, and the notation used for the trigonometric functions.
• Skipping down to number theory: Two sentences in close proximity start with "a lot of".
• Skipping down to graph theory, this sentence needs a cite: In 1736 Euler solved, or rather proved insoluble, a problem known as the seven bridges of Königsberg.

These are just random examples: in general I the article is very readble, but a bit more work is needed to tighten and refine the prose, and to cite a few more statements. I won't object, as I won't be able to revisit the article due to travel, and these issues should be easy to fix. Sandy 00:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to comb through the article. I've fixed all the problems you cited. Borisblue 16:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are several stylistic problems with this article, but I cannot fix them since those screen-high citation blocks make the source text impossible to navigate. Please move the citation details to the end of the page. Fredrik Johansson 14:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

  Oh dear me, you're right, the citation is a mess. I've formatted it better and removed unecessary parameters so the 1-page-long citation block doesn't happen anymore. I hope the markup is editable now. Borisblue 15:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, but a few things could use attention:

• "Several of his children also attained distinction." Details?
• "Richard Feynman (Lectures on Physics, p.I-22-10)." Make this consistent with the rest of the article (use a footnote)
• "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." A layman isn't going to see why this is so "natural".
• "Trivia" by definition is trivial; either expand these points (especially the last two), work them into the text, or eliminate the section.

Overall, though, a great article. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 17:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I removed the "children" bit, and incorporated the trivia section in the article like you suggested. I'm trying to figure out exactly where the Feynman quote comes from, but once I do, yes that ref should be in footnotes as well. Thanks! Borisblue 17:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

*minor note. As a native french speaker, I'm not sure that "he is the master of us all" is the correct translation for "c'est notre maître à tous". In terms of connotation, I think the semantics of master is slightly stronger in english, especially with the phrasing "the master of us all" rather than "our master". Now correct me if I'm wrong but isn't "the master of us all" suggesting some sort of hierarchical relationship? The wiktionary entry The french word "maître" is routinely used to denote reverence to the rolemodel, I don't think that's the case in english. Pascal.Tesson 05:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC) I fixed it. Pascal.Tesson

• Oppose for now. Here are things that should be adressed I think: See update of vote from Oppose to weak support below. Pascal.Tesson

1. I have quickly gone through it and the prose, while quite good, is not exactly compelling and certainly not brilliant. For instance I have removed a number of occurrences of "Euler" where the pronoum suffices. Some adjustments of that sort would really improve the flow of the article.
2. I've corrected the translation of the second french sentence which completely missed the witty point of Condorcet. this has also been adressed. Pascal.Tesson
3. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear and in any case it seems odd that this would appear before the description of his mathematical legacy. Pascal.Tesson
4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. By the way I think it's worth adding the sentence that one of the magical aspects of Euler's identity is that it involves the 5 arguably most important constants in mathematics.
5. Why don't we have a nice picture of the 10 swiss franc bill? Is this a copyright issue? If it is, then I'm sure we could either argue for fair use or even manage to get authorisation. It seems like Swiss banknotes are not copyrighted. Good news so I put it up. Pascal.Tesson
6. There's no discussion about his work on the logarithm of negative numbers. The history of mathematics book I have home (Boyer and Merzbach) credit him with explaining to D'Alembert that the log of -1 is i pi. I don't claim to know much about Euler, but I did remember that one so I'm worried that the article is far from comprehensive in terms of his mathematical contributions. (added now) Pascal.Tesson

All that being said, it's still a great article and should be able to make it to FA after a few weeks' work. Pascal.Tesson 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the comprehensiveness issue is pretty much unavoidable, as Euler is the most prolific mathematician ever it would be impossible to say something about every mathematical advance he made in a 32kbish article(that would fill an entire wikiproject) the best we can do is say something about his more significant contributions. Plus, I was trying to make the math readable to the lay person, thus omitting some of the details of the mathematics and concentrating on the "big picture" And looking at it again, I agree that more can be said about his work in logarithms, which really were a focal point in his research in analysis. I agree about the Feynman quote, it should refer to Euler's identity rather than Euler's Formula, I'll see if I can get access to the Feynman book to check it out. Borisblue 14:05, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Re the log of -1: I think Euler was mainly settling a dispute between Johann Bernoulli and GW Leibniz. I'll try to get a source on that and stick it in the Euler's identity article soon. Melchoir 20:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. What I wrote I got from Boyer's book. From what I remember he says something like "although it should have been apparent to Bernoulli." Pascal.Tesson 20:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm continuing to make some minor fixes and have added one more inline reference in the intro. By the way, I think the duplicate references shouldn't appear as all distinct. The article has a list of 27 references when in fact there are only a dozen or so. The Calinger article appears 6 times for example. Pascal.Tesson 23:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Ooops. Midway through adressing that comment, I realized that the various citations are to different pages of those references. That still looks like over-accurate referencing to me but then again maybe that's not the standard. In any case I will stop merging the references until we agree on that issue. Pascal.Tesson 23:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I like doing references this way because I find it easier when I have to do research- since the page information is already there, I don't see any reason to rm it. By the way, since you know french, would you mind fixing the "master of us all" quote? Thanks!

Wow, just looked through the extent of you improvements- thanks for all the good work! I've reverted the referencing changes and placed a discussion topic on the the talk page. Borisblue 02:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that if we do decide to revert to the old system, which franky I don't really mind, only the names of the refs need to be changed. I did not actually modify the references themselves since as soon as there is a name match, the rest of the reference is ignored. I will change the translation to "He is a master for us all" which is epsilon-better I think.Pascal.Tesson 04:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment any chance you could rewrite the second half of the graph theory/topology section? It seems unnecessarily technical. Actually, one way out of all this is to create a separate article on Euler's contributions to mathematics where it would be fair-game to describe this to a more mathematically inclined audience. Pascal.Tesson 05:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

  Yeah, I'll work on that section later tonight. Actually, I did try to create a subarticle about Euler's mathematics contributions that would cover it more in depth, but then one of the established editors in this article overruled me and reverted my changes. I think I'm going to try again and create an article mathematical discoveries of Leonhard Euler which would be more comprehensive and technical, and leave the math in this article to be more of a casual read. Borisblue 16:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok. It's not that I think there's too much on the math section of the main article, I think it's about right except for what I mentionned about logarithms (needs more) and topology (needs less). It's more a question of getting some article where we can do him justice. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Added a paragraph about the logarithms in the analysis section and trimmed out the topology part. I don't think it's correct to say Euler made any contributions to topology at all. Topology as we know it didn't exist in his time- while it might be right to say his work suggested it, that's not really enough to justify saying too much about topology. Borisblue 22:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I believe the latest issue of Nature has a book review on a recent book on the subject. Since you are a mathematician, it might be worth your while to check out both the review and the book itself. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Hmm... I'll check it out. Thank you! Borisblue 22:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• As suggested earlier, I've created a specific page for his contributions. Hopefully this will help in slightly condensing the section in the main article without sacrificing any content or, more to the point, make sure that this section does not grow unreasonnably in the future. For now I have more or less simply pasted the current section into the new article which can be developped. BorisBlue, you might want to add back in there what you deleted from the main page. Since I also copied his list of works there, it might also make sense to shorten the current list to include his most famous works and refer to the other article for a complete list. Pascal.Tesson 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh and it might help if I said what that article title is! I chose Contributions of Leonhard Euler to mathematics. I most certainly won't be offended if anyone wants to move it to a more euphonious name. Pascal.Tesson 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I've added a few external links to extra references. The good news is that there's a lot of good information in those references. The bad news is of course that this reinforces my belief that the article is not yet comprehensive. Note also that many of these references are very well written and we should aspire to that kind of quality for the wiki article. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  The issue is, given that Euler has been written about by a lot of peer-reviewed journals, I have been very picky in choosing sources. The bulk of the article has been based on sources from the Historia Mathematica, American Math Monthly, and books published by the American Math. Society and Oxford press. I think we should be reluctant to base facts on the article on some professors lectures that he published on the internet, or even non-peer reviewed sources like mathworld, given that so many serious historians are dedicated to Euler and we can (and have) use them instead. You have stated repeatedly that the comprehensiveness of the article concerns you: well, other than the now-fixed omission of the negatuve logarithms, this criticism is unfortunately very vague; what precisely do you believe should be added? If it is discussion of Euler's mathematics, bear in mind that Euler is the most prolific mathematician in history, and so it will be impossible to discuss all his mathematical contributions in a 30-40kb wiki article. I think the article in its current state does give a good overview of his most significant contributions; and now with the "contributions" subpage we can add more detail if need be. But I need to know needs to be included.Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  One of the external links you added was the EB article on Euler: note that that even that omits what is one of his most famous discoveries: the Konigsberg bridges problem. Of course, our standards should be (and already are) higher than EB's, but please keep in mind Euler's humongous total output when citing comprehensiveness concerns. Borisblue 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment actually, I know that I'm being vague. I don't claim to be anything close to an authority on Euler and I'm simply worried about comprehensiveness because I want to make sure we cross check other references before making this an FA. I'm not saying we should put in here every little bit of info we can find but we might find in those references important aspects that have been overlooked in the handful of references which were the primary sources for the bulk of the article. Skipping through some of these I was for instance able to put in the year for the St-Petersburg fire and the subject of his master's dissertation. (Not that either is tremendously important) My goal in putting these other references is also just to give the reader ample choices of further reading. I am much happier with the article now than I was a week ago. Actually let me make that clearer by changing my opinion below. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Great article, well-written, good pictures, etc. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support Let me update my earlier comments. I think this is much closer than what we need for FA. My remaining concerns are:

1. Writing still has to be polished. Because Wiki articles are written incrementally, their flow is often subpar. This has been improved from last week but it still needs a bit to reach the "brilliant prose" criterion.
2. The philosophy and religious beliefs section is not so clear. In particular the Diderot anecdote is odd. There's an apparent contradiction with the Diderot is dumb/Diderot is not so dumb thing.
3. Comprehensiveness: much better but as noted above we should cross check with other references. Also Euler's bibliography has been removed which might be a bit of an overkill. How about adding back his four or five most important publications and referencing to the long article for an extended list?
4. I'm not sure about the Feynman assessment of the first formula as being the most remarkable in mathematics. As a math major, I had a number of different profs describe the second one (Euler's identity) as the most beautiful truth that has ever existed and I suspect that the Feynman quote is simply misplaced. Pascal.Tesson 13:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated my recommendation from "weak suport" to "support". The writing is much better with all the tiny fixes made by various editors. There are extra images, extra references, better overall organization. I can confidently say that the quality of the article has surpassed the featured one on Gauss. Pascal.Tesson 05:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• I fixed the feynman reference. The Diderot thing is a bit confusing- what the article is trying to say is that this anecdote is very commonly circulated (ie, that diderot is dumb) but that the anecdote is definitely untrue. I'm not sure how to reword it however. Thanks for bringing these points up. I must say that you are definitely the best kind of FAC participant, seeing how much you contributed to make the article better. Reading the EB article again, I feel that there is some stuff that should be added (synthetic geometry, e.g. Euler Line). Also, about comprehensiveness, since we are both college math majors we are perhaps not that qualified in the field- you are right, and that is one problem with wikipedia. I'm going to try to email Ronald Calinger, a math historian who specializes in Euler (he is referneced in the article) and hope that he will respond. I think having an expert check will give us a better idea whether the article is comprehensive, and if not what needs to be done. Borisblue 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Yes it's been fun working on this. Certainly a math historian should take a look at it. I recently posted a notice on the WikiProject mathematics page to try and get some more feedback from mathematically competent people but you're right: it's the history we are likely to represent incorrectly. In any case, I am likely not going to contribute much to this article (save minor edits) in the coming two weeks but good luck with it. I'm sure that you'll get plenty of support now. Pascal.Tesson 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Terrific article on a terrific mathematician.UberCryxic 17:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment have added an Infobox (see talk page). Pascal.Tesson 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well written article on important topic. Unlike articles on so many other less important topics, it can't possibly cover everything completely, because there is so much more to write about one of the greatest scientists of all time, then, say, about Cynna Kydd, but it covers the most important points, and what it does say, it says very well. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Request to delay promotion The tally is 5-0 now, but I asked an expert historian to review the article, and he brought up some issues I would like to fix before promotion (see Talk:Leonhard_Euler#Letter_from_Ronald_Calinger.21). These shouldn't be hard to deal with, but I think it would be good to fix them before this article is featured. Borisblue 15:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

  Real Life (tm) is getting in the way, it may be a while before I can work on the stuff. Borisblue 01:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Same for me actually, but I don't think there's any rush. Not sure which admin is currently in charge of checking the FAC debates but I'm sure he/she will not mind a reasonnable delay. The article is close enough to deserve that patience. Pascal.Tesson 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have addressed Calinger's comments. Borisblue 19:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The article has been up for a month, creating work for editors who have to keep checking status in order to vote Keep or Oppose. Since it's close, and it appears you will have the support once you have time to iron out the remaining issue, maybe you can consider withdrawing the nomination until you're ready to finish it up, and re-submitting when it's ready? Sandy 18:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment with all due respect, I don't think that makes sense. For one thing, even the expert's opinion was globally positive and there's not much to do left. I think the current version meet the criteria and it's not like we have to stop improving the article once it gets FA status. Also, I'm not sure that there are many editors who have followed the article's progression that closely over the past month. I feel it would be more time consumming for everybody to start the process all over again in two weeks. Just my 0.02$ though. Pascal.Tesson 20:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Now wholeheartedly support I don't think that there's any question the article meets all the FA criteria.

1. I won't go and say that the prose is brilliant, but I think "compelling prose" is probably a fair assessment. The flow is there, the traces of the construction of the article have been erased.
2. Comprehensiveness I don't think is an issue anymore, especially after the integration of Calinger's comments.
3. Factually acurate. Certainly falls in line with the references I had available. Thoroughly referenced, good combo of hard references and somewhat less reliable but online references.
4. Neutral (not that this ever was an issue)
5. Stable: while there has been extensive editing in the last weeks, the content wasn't drastically modified.
6. Manual of style compliant. The content is well organized, lead section does what it should, TOC is good. Infobox and metadata were added.
7. Good, varied images: portraits, stamps, figures explaining his contributions to math, copy of title page of his book.
8. Lenght has been kept reasonnable especially after splitting the "contributions" section. 35kb is not short but then again this is Euler not Lindy Booth and that's probably below the biographical FA average anyways.

I plan to stop fiddling with it, at least until the FA status is resolved. The next target should be to rewrite the spinoff article on Euler's contributions to mathematics. Pascal.Tesson 16:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Another bit of feedback from an editor who recently updated the assessment on the talk page and whom I asked for input. Pascal.Tesson 21:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think this one is ready to go now. Kaldari 04:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is a great article. I made a few fairly minor changes. Here are a few more comments:
  • The last sentence in the section Leonhard Euler#St. Petersburg is fuzzy. He has a second wife? When did that happen? What happened to his first wife? Another reference to remarrying appears in the section Leonhard Euler#Return to Russia; is this the same incident? If so, the reference to the second wife should be deleted from Leonhard Euler#St. Petersburg.
  • The Leonhard Euler#See also section has a link to mathematical constants which seems to me quite irrelevant. Sure, Euler discovered some constants, but then he also discovered lots of other things that we don't have here.

Other than that I think the article is great and support its nomination. --Zvika 17:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and something else (Spangineer has already commented on this, but it went uncorrected): "Understanding the infinite was naturally the major focus of Euler's research." I don't really understand why this is "naturally". Anybody? --Zvika 17:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just that calculus is just, essentially "the study of the infinite". I'll remove it, since it's not clear.Borisblue 15:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed all the issues you brought up. Thanks! Borisblue 15:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhaka

Hi - I submit this article to your attention. Although its re-writing was rapid and may have some copyediting issues, I've made sure this article is comprehensive, informative, well-written and referenced. Rama's arrow 00:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Under Mughal rule, the city was known as Jahangir Nagar. -- somewhat confusing statement. Gives the impression that Jahangirnagar was an oldername, which is really not the case.
2. Change the name of rasgulla and gulab jamun (whatever they might link to) -- that is not what they are called in Bengali. In fact that whole para is problematic, why is Asharh and Christmas in the same sentence, those are completely unrelated types of things. I am also quite unaware of any widespread festivals of Asharh.
3. Similarly Habib Wahid is really a random example.

--ppm 16:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned those bits up. Rama's arrow 02:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Provisional support. Only one thing...the latitude/longitude is in the body twice. I think it would be better if the practice that is rapidly coming a standard of putting it in an infobox or using the coor template would be better. Rlevse 02:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed that point, although I can't understand one thing - the coordinates are already in the infobox but not being displayed. Rama's arrow 02:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I fixed that for you. Your format was wrong, see the template's sample. Rlevse 17:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Rama's arrow 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object (see below) lot of holes. Take the first para of "Economy" for example. The liberation war reference is just hanging there with no support. Then a mall is called a "great economical boost for the nation." simply not brilliant writing. --ppm 19:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I see what you're saying - will fix it immediately. Just to note - the mall sentence was a hangover from the article's old version. Completely missed my attention, sorry. Rama's arrow 20:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added a lot of new references. I think I've plugged most holes. Can you please give a fresh assessment? Rama's arrow 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment:

1. Is it possible to change/add some photos? The Education sections's photo of BUET's EME Building is not very imrpessive, rather I'd suggest adding commons:Image:Curzon_Hall_Main_Building.A.M.R.jpg, which shows the historic Curzon Hall, a beautiful British-era building, used as the science faculty building of Dhaka University (which is the main educational institution of Dhaka). BUET is my own undergrad school, but I think the Curzon hall image is more appropriate here.
2. For civic administration, can a photo of the "Nagar bhaban" of Dhaka City Corporation be added? There are plenty of photos of the building available at commons:Category:Dhaka. I'm not asking to replace the Sangshad bhaban image, rather want to know if a nice photo of the City corp building can be added. You can skip it if you find the number of images to be too many.
3. What is the significance of Sadarghat image in the sports section? I think a photo of Dhaka Stadium would be good. If you can't find good free ones, you might look into Fair use images. I do have one image of a cricket crowd (England vs BD) in commons commons:Image:Dhaka stadium cricket Crowd.jpg. But the stadium image might be better in this section.

That's all for now. Thanks. --Ragib 21:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support: Thanks for making the changes I suggested above. The article now looks great. --Ragib 13:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments

1. "The population of the Dhaka city stands at 6 million but the wider metropolitan area is estimated at 9.3 million." is this sentence grammatically ok? same quation abt "Dhaka has as many as 1,868 kilometres of roads"
2. "A vast majority of the people of Dhaka are Bengalis from regions such as Khulna, Sylhet, Chittagong" what's so special abt these places? Dhaka is the capital, there r ppl from evrywhere
3. "An undermanned and ill-equipped police force has caused governments to deploy the Bangladeshi Army.[19] In 2003, the government deployed 40,000 army soldiers to fight crime.[20]" -- reading the 1st sentence one might think the deployment is permament. the two sentences should somehow be combined. Also, more relevant perhaps is the deployment of RAB (rapid action batallion)
4. The secretariat doesn't contain the supreme court, its seperate, both in Ramna.
5. "Dhaka also suffers from a chronically high crime rate, civil disturbances, political and religious violence.[18]" though this personally seems abt right, the reference points to a particular event. Maybe tone down a bit.

--ppm 19:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've addressed your points. Rama's arrow 22:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments
• History

• "On August 15, 1947 East Bengal became a part of the new Muslim state of Pakistan". Can you confirm that it was August 15 and not 14th? Because Pakistan got independence on 14th, then why did East Bengal join on 15th?
• "The city witnessed serious communal violence" - serious communal violence does not sound nice (IMO). Some other adjective could be used.

• Geography

• "covers a total area close to 815.85 square kilometres" - "close to" gives a sense of approximation, yet the figure is very exact (correct to 2 decimal places). "close to" could be removed.
• I have made some changes to the section regarding units (basically adding &nbsp between the values and the units).
• The lines starting from "The intensive development of the urban agglomeration is causing" could go into a new paragraph. There is no link between the two sentences and the topic suddenly jumps from climate to urban problems.

• Civic Administration

• "Dhaka Education Board is responsible for administering all public schools with the exception of English-medium" - Are the English Medium schools run by some other board? Or are all english medium schools private?

I've still to review the sections after civic administration. Will put my "vote" after a complete review. - Aksi_great (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your points. The partition of India took place officially on August 15, but Pakistan had formed its government on August 14 - the reason why Jinnah chose to celebrate the 14th. In any case to avoid confusion I've shortened that sentence. Rama's arrow 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• More comments

1. Dhaka college deserves mention, first instituition of higher education in the nation.
2. "Dhaka is located in southern Bangladesh" - I would think its really in the middle
3. grammar check - "Dhaka boasts a greater literacy rate and the largest number of schools, colleges and universities in Bangladesh."
4. "While posing a major danger to ecosystems, pollution is increasingly a public health hazard."--maybe rephrase
5. "Bangladeshi women wearing white with red linning (mostly) sarees" - is it that prevalent? I would think so-called Bashanti color also has a good share. anyway
6. "with hundreds of thousands of Muslims attending prayers in almost every city mosque" -- each mosque housing hundreds of thousands of muslims, surely a slip of pen, neverthless funny :)
7. demographics - is any breakdown of religious groups available?

In general copyediting needed. The article changes its tone from a (for want of a better term) outsiders view - as the reference to "people from chittagong etc in dhaka" I previously mentioned to a too-much-detail-view, like mention of "Anik" as a means of transportation in dhaka. look out for more of these.--ppm 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your fresh points. As you suggest I will do another review looking for similar problems. I could not find any statistic on city religious makeup (just national). Rama's arrow 20:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• More comments from Aksi_great

• Transport - "Dhaka has as many as 1,868 kilometres of roads" is not a correct sentence. "Highway links and public bus services to Kolkata and Agartala have been established and run by the Bangladesh Road Transport Corporation." does not seem correct. How about "Highway links to K & A have been established by BRTC which also runs regular bus services to those cities from Dhaka.
• Demographics - "The continuing growth ... in the 1980s" is a very long sentence. Try splitting it into 2.
• Sports - The sports section could do with a bit of re-organising. The setion starts with "Dhaka has the distinction of having hosted the first official test cricket match of the Pakistan cricket team in 1954 against India". Though an interesting fact, it is a very poor opening sentence. In fact, the sentence could also be shifted to the sub-article, but I don't insist on that. The section should atleast start with which sports are popular. "Cricket and football are the two most popular sports in Dhaka and across the nation" is the second sentence of the second para. It should probably be the first sentence. And then all the details about stadiums and players.

That's it from me. I will take a look again once these points and other points mentioned by Shmitra are addressed. As I am not from Bangladesh, I can't judge whether the article is comprehensive enough. But from where I look it seems to meet WIAFA. It would be great if you could ping Tony, Sandy or Spangineer to take a look at the article too for checking the prose. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed your fresh points. Thanks for the review - hate to point the obvious but you don't have to be a Bangladeshi to judge. However, a dude like Shmitra has given great insight owing to his own experience. Rama's arrow 14:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of my points. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments:

• "sewerage system"—I've never heard this, but m-w.com has. Just confirming that it wasn't meant to be "sewage system"; either is fine.
• "this serves only 15 percent of the population while another 30 percent are served with septic tanks.[14] Only 25% of the city's population is connected to the piped sewerage system, and only two-thirds of the households are connected to water." These statistics appear to be contradictory: 15% "served", but 25% "connected". Slightly better flow in this paragraph would be helpful (any studies connecting use of open latrines to infectious disease death rate?). The jump from disease to crime is a little jolting.
• Missing any connection: "New urban developments have resulted in a real estate and construction boom in recent years. The main business districts of the city include Motijheel, Pantapath and Gulshan."
• Same thing: "Housing and construction, the production of textiles and garments, chemicals, food and a wide variety of consumer products takes place throughout the city. The construction of high-rise buildings and skyscrapers are changing the city landscape." Try to put all of the boom/growth stuff together, followed by industries and their locations.
• Conflict over the number of rickshaws—as many as 400,000, but then only 320,000 running daily. Perhaps use numbers only in one of the two sections?
• Where does the 15 million in the lead come from? The population section basically says that there are 6 million within city limits, and another 3 in the metropolitan area (for a combined total of 9 million).
• Any image experts out there who could make the Curzon Hall picture have a flat horizon?

Nice job with this—the main problem I see is that the flow of the text isn't quite optimal. Read through it and ask at every period whether or not the thing before it and the thing after it are related somehow. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reorganised several paragraphs and sentences throughout the article according to your points. Please do have another look. Thanks, Rama's arrow 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks better. Support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 03:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Many statements don't really correlate with reference provided. I tried to fix some such issues, but more probably remain--ppm 01:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean - almost every fact is referenced. If you really think there is a problem, please provide some examples so I can fix the issue. Rama's arrow 02:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support -- all issues have been handled. --ppm 04:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support Excellent work.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Aksi_great (talk) 07:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arctic Tern

Self nomination, although I would not have been able to get this to where it is without the help of others, including Sabine's Sunbird, Jimfbleak, MPF, and others. This article had a Peer Review which had comments and suggestions, which have been followed.

This article is comprehensive, because it covers all necessary areas. It is extensively referenced, with tens of inline citations from several different sources, including books, websites, and periodicals. It has images, all of which are from the Commons. It it well written. Surely this amazing avian should have its article featured. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the lead is a bit brief and the text is too broken up, especially in the description section where all the paragraphs are very short.--Peta 01:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The lead is now longer. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I did a bit of tidying, but everything is there now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Added minor stuff (description original ref., Sterna macrura as a long-time synonym (based on 1920s belief that Pontoppidan's bird was unidentifiable), comment on lack of subspecies.) Dysmorodrepanis 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object:

• Better explanation of "K-selected" in the lead would be nice. The current explanation, "devoting resources into a small number of young", doesn't really make sense.
• "It is unique to the bird"—does this mean unique to the species or each individual?
• Extensive use of simple sentences (see beginning of the first two paragraphs of the Reproduction section). More variety would be great (semicolons and dashes exist for a reason).
• "This way of feeding is quite difficult." Huh? If it's so difficult, why do they do it that way? Obviously it's not too difficult for them. Perhaps state the success rate or that no other birds do it; at this point, this sentence is virtually worthless.
• Consistent use or non-use of the serial comma would be a plus.

Not a bad article, but some things need to be fixed. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 18:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses in order to your points:

• I changed the lead. Is the explanation better now?
• I asked Sabine's Sunbird for clafification and we will be able to resolve that soon.
• I'd like to point out that using short sentences makes it easier to read. Still, I combined the first two sentences of the second paragraph into one sentence.
• The source in question (The Firefly Encyclopedia Of Birds ISBN 1-55297-777-3) says this on its page 269: "Young not only have to learn prey types and foraging habits, but how to plunge dive, a difficult task" (my emphasis). The source I used that plunge diving is difficult, but goes into no further detail about it. Nevertheless, I have commented out the sentence in question.
• That should be fixed.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified the senetence but am wondering if perhaps it reads as if only Arctic Terns and passerines have identifying calls. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing elsewhere in the reprocuction section. Sentences now vary more in length. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'll try to review this later tonight. For now, why is the wingspan number in the lead different from the one in the body? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 15:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• That was probably a typo on my part. I changed it now. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... I'm still having trouble with the prose. It's not so much the use of short sentences (though more variety would be fantastic). A few examples:

• 3rd paragraph, "Reproduction" section: "Other birds can benefit from nesting in an area defended by Arctic Terns." This sentence is just tacked on to the end, with no attempt to connect it to the preceding thought. If included, this information should immediately follow discussion about the defensive prowess of the Arctic Tern, not the bluffing skills of the Common Tern. Incidentally, this is one of the several problems with the "This way of feeding is quite difficult" sentence. Better to keep it in the reproduction section.
• Later that section, we have "Both parents care for the hatchlings and bring them food for roughly a month." In the following paragraph, we have "Feeding by the parents lasts for a considerable time before being weaned off slowly." Aside from extremely vague language (what's the definition of "considerable" and "slowly"?), these sentences are related but are separated.
• While not as bad as the previous examples, "The average Arctic Tern in its life will travel a distance equal to going to the moon and back" could be better placed. The general discussion about the distance traveled is at the beginning of the paragraph, while specific cases follow. This sentence belongs in the former category, but is placed after the latter.

The goal here isn't to find a piece of useful information in a source and then stick in a relevant paragraph. The goal is to tell a story, naturally moving the reader from one thought to the next.

A few more specific issues:

• What is meant by "The population trend as a whole is not known." Is that the growth rate? Or the growth rate by region? Not too sure what is being communicated. Whatever it is, is it unusual? That is, is "the population trend as a whole" known for any other birds or animals? If not, it's probably not worth mentioning.
• "and different from that of the Roseate." Presumably all bird calls are different from each other. How are they different in this case?
• "The Arctic Tern is very similar to the Common and Roseate Terns." "Very" is useless here. However, my main issue is that this claim is made, but then the differences are described. Make a claim in the paragraph's topic sentence, and defend it.

Hopefully these comments make sense; sorry about the delay. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 16:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

• The sentence about Common Terns bluffing has been taken out.
• That sentence has been split and with the parts put into the following paragraph.
• That sentence has been moved closer to the beginning of the paragraph.
• The lead has been clarified to make it clear that the population trend for the species as a whole is being discussed.
• It has been clarified to make it clear that the calls of the Common and Arctic Terns are less different than that of the Arctic and Roseate Terns.
• I beg to differ. By mentioning only the differences, the article implies that what is not mentioned is (nearly) identical or very similar amongst the species.

Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see my edit to the similarity/differences paragraph—the meaning is retained, but the flow is improved by making the first sentence connect directly to the rest of the paragraph. Also, I think I didn't make myself clear regarding my confusion with "population trend". Are you talking about overall population (as in numbers) or population distribution (as in geography)? The preceding sentence talks about distribution (southern part of the range), and the sentence before that talks about number (one million birds). Or do you mean both? --Spangineer^es (háblame) 20:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence in the lead has been changed from "The population trend in the species as a whole is not known." to "The trend in the number of individuals in the species as a whole is not known." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

After further changes, the last sentence is now "While the trend in the number of individuals in the species as a whole is not known, exploitation in the past has reduced this bird's numbers in the southern reaches of its range." Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. I now support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: It is frequently being edited, I think the the article The Perfect Article said that it should not be frequently edited, with the exception of vandalisam. Daniel10 18:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That apparent frequent number of edits is only apparent for 2 reasons: First, it was only August that me and others started adding information to make it featured, which caused a large number of edits: second, those edits are due to me resolving objections or others making several section edits in a row due, all of which are mainly minor in impact. For example, when I made some edits in response to Spangineer I did it by using the edit this page button; had i used section edit I would have had to make several different edits with the same cumulative impact as the one I actually made. The article is not changing significantly from day to day. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 18:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Miss Madeline; these recent edits are not indicative of instability. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 00:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The article clearly says "Arctic Terns are K-selected". r-K selection is a relative, rather than an absolute designation, and it's a theoretical construct rather than an observation. Consequently, I don't think it appropriate to say that a species is K-selected, especially without a reference. I would be much more comfortable with "has been described as being K-selected" (REF), rather than is. Guettarda 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed the sentence to say that Arctic Terns trend towards K-selection. I also took the reference in the seabird article that said seabirds were K-selected and added it to that sentence. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Support. Guettarda 00:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alcibiades

This is an article Dmcheatw had started to improve a few months ago. When I got in, I tried to initiate further improvements and I have now finally completed a thorough rewriting. Alcibiades is now a GA and has gone through three peer-reviews: 1 thorough peer-review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Alcibiades), 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Military history (Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Alcibiades) and 1 peer-review by the WikiProject Biography (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Alcibiades). During this long course Robth's advice and assistance have been more than valuable. I thought it was the right time for this second nomination.--Yannismarou 08:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As of 30 September 2006, this article had 49 KB of prose

• Support; all the issues brought up in the military history peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 13:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support (with the caveat that I did a little bit of work on this). This is an excellent and very balanced article, which is an impressive achievement given that Alcibiades is perhaps the most controversial figure of ancient Greek history. Superb work as always. --Robth^Talk 15:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - very good article, I'm particularly impressed how the main contributor has been able to mantain a perfect balance, avoiding any of his personal opinions regarding Alcibiades to emerge in the article.--Aldux 16:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Phenomenal article.UberCryxic 20:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Kyriakos 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Just one question, is the "Timeline of Alcibiades' life" hidden for a special reason? -- EnemyOfTheState 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• You've a point. In other articles I had a timeline not-hidden by default. But I had complaints that it is wide and long. I was then told that it should be better to have it hidden. I also think that it is better like that. Somebody could be disturbed by its size while reading the notes. Now if somebody wants to see it, he can just click on "show".--Yannismarou 08:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Some formatting concerns, mostly minor (Now fixed):
  • The use of Greek letters for the notes: This has been done before on featured articles, but I find the Greek letters hard to read, and would prefer that Roman letters (a,b,c) be used for notes. In some places ref marks follow in both Greek letters (notes) and numbers (citations) - could the citations be combined into the notes in those cases? (I think the only two are in "Early Years") Why is one note mark two letters? None of this is very important, but I am curious why people use Greek letters rather than Roman.
  • The timeline causes odd rendering of the notes. First, there is an extra dynamic navFrame with no content. This is what makes the timeline hidden by default, because any time there is more than one navFrame, they are all hidden. This is seemingly unnecessary, and might lead someone to use display:none in regard to actual content. Next, whether the timeline is hidden or shown, some of the subsequent notes are squeezed off to the side to make room on some browsers. This latter is a noticeable rendering defect in my opinion.
  • It's odd that the primary sources are in two columns (and not balanced at that), but the secondary sources are in a single column. Also be aware that moz-column-count:2 does not work on all common browsers, but the columns-2 class (as used in {{col-begin}}) works more commonly. One possible solution to some of these issues would be to put the citations in one column of 2-column (using class columns-2), and the timeline as the second column. See for example Rabindranath Tagore. Gimmetrow 01:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your useful, accurate and detailed remarks. It is nice to see such a good review in terms of style and layout. I tried to address your concerns as much as I could:
  • I prefer Greek letters because of my inner taste for variety (and maybe because of my origins!). But you are right that you and many other people around the world are not used to the Greek alphabet. Thus I replaced the Greek alphabet with Roman letters. You were also right about the ref marks which followed in both Greek letters (notes) and numbers (citations). It was a deficiency I corrected, incoroporating these citations in the notes they are related.
  • Now both the primary and the secondary sources are in a single column. I hope it is better like that.
  • Your remark about the noticeable rendering defect in the notes sections is also well-stated. I'm also aware of the fact that moz-column-count:2 does not work on all browsers. But I think it's better to keep it for those it works. A long series of citations without moz-column-count:2 is stylistically not so nice. I'm also aware of the layout of Rabindranath Tagore I initially used as a model. The problem is that with the layout of Tagore you have a huuuuuge column of citations and a huuuuuge timetable, when it is not hidden. When it is hidden, you have again a huuuuuge column of citations and a huuuuuge empty space! That is why I preferred to move the timetable to the "Notes" section, keep it hidden so that it does not occupy much space and divide the citations in two columns. I understand that this layout may also have some deficiencies. But making a "cost-benefit analysis" I concluded that this layout is better and with less deficiencies than the one of Rabindranath Tagore. After all, perfectionism is a nobel goal, but "perfect solutions" are in scarcity! Once again thanks for the remarks. I hope I have addressed at least some of your concerns.--Yannismarou 08:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• This article is very good work, and I thank you for changing the note symbols to Roman letters. I understand going with a solution for the timetable that works in most cases. I'm just noting that on one common browser, when the timeline is hidden note (b) is pushed to the left leaving a large block of whitespace. However, I was unable to find a simple html fix and I suspect this is actually a side-effect of something in the dynamic navbar javascript. Gimmetrow 14:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, a nice article deserving a star :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support—Very nice. Tony 02:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Nice job. Sandy 00:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Support Excellent article. Tomwe 19:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support: I don't usually vote here, but this article deserves a huge round of support. Great work. Danny 00:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Yet another amazing article! --Konst.able 00:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enzyme kinetics

Self-nomination. An article on enzyme kinetics that tries to explain the basics, details and importance of this area. The article aims to be both comprehensive and reasonably approachable. This article is currently GA and has recently been peer-reviewed (Link) Thank you. TimVickers 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support : I was the reviewer for the good article nomination and all of my suggestions were answered. It is a well-referenced, well-illustrated article. Equations don't make it unreadable. Nice work! NCurse _work 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per NCurse Trashking 21:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support : I was asked to be a reviewer of this more than once. I regret I did nothing on it.. But this page is superb. Enzyme Kinetics is SO boring but SO important. This a wonderful page Kudos to you! Adenosine | Talk 23:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support another excellent enzyme article from Tim. I think I've already done as much nitpicking as I can on this one. Opabinia regalis 00:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I'd hit it.UberCryxic 01:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
  • LOL. But would you catalyze it? -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 06:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Outstanding. Uncompetitive vs. non-competitive inhibition always gives me a headache, but this is one of the most clear presentations I've seen - anywhere. -- MarcoTolo 02:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Read it. Learned a lot. No Problems. Great Article. Full Support. Mercenary2k 05:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Clean and clear science article. Merosonox 07:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak oppose due to ongoing discussion at the article's ongoing peer review. In a nutshell: Wikipedia's best articles should be intelligible in a print medium, too; "(Gif)", "(Flash required)" and "(Link: Java required)" may be better placed as footnotes. Using Lupin's tools, there is no loss in convenience by doing so, and it's reasonable to assume that a browser capable of Flash and Java can do JavaScript, too (required for Lupin's tool). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I moved the links into references, but as a newbie, I haven't heard of Lupin. I found User:Lupin but there wasn't anything there that seemed relevant. Was I looking in the correct place and what are these tools? TimVickers 14:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy with the new format showing the links as references? I saw this tool, but doesn't it require the reader to install software in their browser before the popups will work? Is that a practical or desirable requirement in an encyclopedia entry? TimVickers 19:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you happy with the new format showing the links as footnotes? I still don't know how to apply this tool however, could you explain what it does? TimVickers 21:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Although this is a clever solution, I don't think the links are prominent enough this way. As a reader I'd be unlikely to follow a footnote unless I specifically wanted a source for a statement, so I probably wouldn't follow these links. As I mentioned on the peer review page, I actually like external links properly integrated into the text where appropriate, but in this case I'd rather see them in an external links section than tucked away in another set of small-text footnotes. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the other possible solution. I've no preference between the two. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll add the page with the two best examples to the external links section as well, to make it more obvious. TimVickers 01:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - with the condition that Samsara's point above is resolved within this otherwise absolutely exceptional article that is absolutely typical of the work done by TimVickers. – ClockworkSoul 14:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: This is a readable article which feels to give an appropriate level introduction. Some nitpicky comments:

• I like the first figure, but it doesn't seem a representative first figure to include. I wonder if it could be brought in lower down the article (eg where you discuss multi-substrate reactions) and some sort of colour graphic better representing enzyme kinetics used up front? (Anyone who doesn't know what an enzyme looks like is probably better served going to look at other articles first.)

This figure is mainly aesthetic, although it is referred to in the introduction. The start of the article was otherwise a bit dull. Did you have any suggestions for something better to accompany the introduction? TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You could try a simple colour diagrammatic depiction of E + S --> E-S --> E + P which I think would be valuable. Also, this might be a stupid suggestion, but is there any way you can visualise enzyme reactions macro-scale with colour changes/fluorescence -- a time-lapse shot might be interesting. Espresso Addict 17:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose I like this figure because it illustrates the point I try to make in the second paragraph of the intro, that a blend of structure and mechanism gives a complete picture of enzyme action. I'll have a go this evening, but I'm not sure I can produce something so striking from just a simple block diagram. I think moving images are discouraged, since they increase page size and download times a great deal. TimVickers 18:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The figure "Enzymes become saturated at high concentrations of substrate" would benefit from some indication of rate of reaction (either a graph underneath the diagrams, or just some graphical interpretation, eg different-sized text).

Changed the legend to explain this. TimVickers 19:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In Single-substrate mechanism/Michaelis-Menten kinetics, the two figures in this section are a bit blurry and text hard to read -- can they be improved? Perhaps increase preview size, if this won't make the text run strangely.

Figures resized. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• k & V in these figures need italicising. The left-hand figure should have v added.

Corrected, italics added. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Standardise italic/not for E and S in the equations vs text.

Fixed. TimVickers 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• I found the use of 'you' a bit distracting.

Removed. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The full stop for multiplication was hard to see -- a larger dot is available from the insert menu (•) and might improve

Larger dot substituted. TimVickers 19:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do you need full stops at the end of the equation 'sentences'?

I wasn't sure so I added them just in case somebody objected! TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• y = mx -- define m (and possibly avoid, given all the subscript m's included)

"m" defined as slope. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In Practical significance of kinetic constants, 'Oxaloacetate can then be consumed by' -- is this strictly accurate? A diagram might be helpful in explaining the concept in paragraph 2.

I have added links to the pathways concerned. TimVickers 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• 'Although this goal is far in the future for any eukaryote, attempts are now being made to achieve this in bacteria such as Escherichia coli.' -- fascinating! Would it be appropriate to explain in slightly more detail?

A bit more detail added. TimVickers 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In Ternary-complex mechanisms, 'these two possibilities are therefore known as random or ordered mechanisms.' is this phrase necessary? It feels over-laboured, and the terms don't seem to be used later.

Reworded. TimVickers 18:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In Non-Michaelis–Menten kinetics: I think you need to explain co-operative binding a little more clearly at first intro. Allosteric could be defined and figure a little blurry, axis legends need to be larger

Image resized, text reworded to define terms.

• In Pre-steady-state kinetics, burst phase needs to be explained in text before it's used, or at least the figure needs to be referenced.

• Should the graph y axis be labelled Amount of E* rather than Amount of product?

I've reworded this and tried to explain both burst phase and the link between product formation and [E] more clearly. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In Irreversible inhibitors, the language in the second sentence needs simplifying.

Broken into 2 sentences. TimVickers 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mechanisms of catalysis: I wasn't sure why this section is needed here? If retained, a direct link to kinetics should be clarified.

Most of this removed and a new paragraph on relation between kinetic and mechanistic studies added. TimVickers 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• In the reference list, strictly number ranges should have n-rules, but it's a pain to add them in this referencing system.

I agree! TimVickers 17:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Espresso Addict 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm always in awe of your thoroughness and eye for detail Espresso Addict, you remind me strongly of my PhD supervisor - a brilliant scientist with a laser-like focus. Thank you for this excellent copy-edit I will get cracking on these. TimVickers 15:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, concerns have been addressed Dr Zak 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC) Oppose. Sorry. Enzyme kinetics is a subset of chemical kinetics, and there are some assumptions that (almost) always hold true within the narrower field. I would start out with the Michaels-Menten equation and outline the assumptions that that is built on and also mention things like the Lineweaver-Burke plot early on. Then one can proceed to multisubstrate reactions. Dr Zak 19:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is what I have done here. After the introduction for non-specialists (conforming to Wikipedia:Summary style) and how the data we analyse is gathered, I do introduce the MM equation, the assumptions behind this and when these assumptions break down. The article tries to produce a gradient of detail going from the least (general principles), then as you say to multi-substrate reactions and then finish with the most complicated (non-MM kinetics and pre-steady-state kinetics).

I only mention Lineweaver-Burke plots and do not show an example as they are rarely used in modern enzymology and when seen are only present for illustrative purposes, because they have a very misleading non-linear error distribution. TimVickers 19:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Michaelis-Menten equation is derived from the assumption that the equilibrium between free enzyme and substrate is established much faster than products are formed and that that [ES] remains constant. This is important. Of course the treatment of errors in the Lineweaver-Burke is not completely trivial, but the plot is very instructive.

I would then mention pre-steady-state kinetics and non-Michaelis kinetics next, because that's where the assumptions just made break down and finally talk about multisubstrate kinetics.

Real-life applications could go farther to the back - this is about the mathematics, not so much about applications of the maths.

Others may have a different viewpoint how things ought to be treated - having done physical-organic chemistry in the past I'm very friendly towards mathematics. Dr Zak 20:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits Dr Zak. Yes, the two different ways of deriving the MM equation (rapid-equilibrium and steady-state) are dealt with here, I hope you are happy with how this is done. I have also added more detail about L-B plots (rather than simply linking to the page where they are discussed in detail). I however disagree that this page is solely about the mathematics. This page does include the mathematics, but sets these in the broader context appropriate for an encyclopedia article. This is done by discussing the uses and meaning of the maths - as this article is not intended simply as a resource for specialists such as ourselves, but as a useful introduction for the general reader. TimVickers 21:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There's always the usual option of forking off the detailed derivations to a separate article. Purely my bias, but I hate the way Lineweaver-Burk plots are taught as if they're in common use and would minimize their importance. Opabinia regalis 00:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support—Well written: congrats. Tony 02:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 02:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Nice job. Sandy 00:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Another beautiful article, wonderfully lucid and scrupulously correct — thanks, Tim! Willow 15:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ulm Campaign

In 1805, the Grand Army under Napoleon Bonaparte conducted one of the finest strategic turning maneuvers in history. This article hopes to tell that story; it has been peer reviewed to fix outstanding issues. All comments, questions, and criticisms are, as always, strongly welcomed.UberCryxic 04:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support now that all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 05:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support another great submission from MILHIST project! Rlevse 11:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support & Comment Great Article. Although if you can find a map showing how much territory Napolean controlled in Europe, it would give the campaign some geographical perspective. Mercenary2k 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done!UberCryxic 22:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support on a fantastic article. The maps make it very easy to comprehend, and I like maps, so that's a double-plus from me. --MPD01605 (T / C) 21:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support as per above. It is unfortunately a little too rare to see military history articles with this much length and depth. Plus, images, maps, and all the appropriate infoboxes! LordAmeth 07:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is a very nice article for sure, but I can't support it yet:
  • The one-paragraph leads in sections kinda mess up the text. Either expand them, or merge them into the first subsection would be a good idea.

These are meant to be very succinct introductory remarks because I don't like starting off a section with a subsection. I've had them on other FAs without complaints. If you really think it is a big problem, however, then I will merge them.

• • The first section is not very nice. Three subsections with just one paragraph is just not very good-looking. Besides, this is a very important chapter. Something needs to be done about that.

I merged the Grandy Army and Austrian army sections. See if you think it looks better now.

• • Some people pointed out that the cquote template was not well-advised (had to remove it in one of my own FAs). I have no own opinion on the subject though.

Yeah I'm not sure about this either - that is, others have also told me I should remove it in prior experiences - but I still think it is useful to highlight an important feature of the subject.

• • You may want to reference some more things and/or to make some notes. You're sure familiar with the subject, but the average reader is quite probably less so. For instance, "Having been defeated twice in recent memory by France and keen on revenge, Austria" - what wars are you talking about? A note may be helpful to explain.

Done.

• • Some people apparently like pictures along both margins, not just on the right. Incidentally, it would probably allow for the maps to be bigger and more readable without clicking on them all.

Done.

• And Cryxic, I would very much appreciate if you wouldn't rush this article through WP:MHPR so fast I can't even see them there, and that during a week-end when I spent a lot of time on WP... :) This way, everything I'm writing now would be corrected before that. :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 08:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologize....it's just that I had to nominate it in the weekend to get early feedback because I don't have much time to work on it during weekdays.UberCryxic 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Too young. In case someone doesn't know, this article just appeared on "DYK" as "Wikipedia's newest articles". Putting it into the main page right after that as a featured article...well, that would seem just awkward. Just wait - I'm sure this article isn't perfect yet. Aran|heru|nar 10:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Much of the basis for this article already exists in the Battle of Ulm, but I do see your point. Nevertheless, can you offer some concrete suggestions for its improvement?UberCryxic 12:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, my concerns are answered in the article talk page. Aran|heru|nar 14:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I wonder if this would be the fastest 'from zero to FA' in our history, by any chance? :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  The obvious article to compare to would be Second Malaysia Plan, which was submitted to FAC the same day it was created (but wasn't actually promoted until two weeks after that date). Kirill Lokshin 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

  Holy crap, that article was made an FAC 20 minutes after it was created. Way to go User:Johnleemk- that must've taken an incredibly long time to write, cite, and get pictures for on one's own. -- Kicking222 19:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support now that the objections were resolved. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fauna of Puerto Rico

I have been working on this article since August and I believe it meets all FA criteria. It has an archived peer review which was of great help. I will try to address objections and comments as soon as I can. Joelito (talk) 23:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be the first to offer my support on this great article. This has been gone over by many, and I'll try to give one more read through myself, but this now meets writing quality, comprehensiveness, and referencing. Excellent pics to accompany the text. One thing: is the Smithsonian pic (Parnell's Mustached Bat) OK? Wiki does not allow stuff with education/non-commercial only tagging, AFAIK. Marskell 00:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Forgot about that pic. Pic changed to a free one. Joelito (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, just a few comments:

1. why a random list of a specific group of birds at the end? Why not any other group?
   • I have removed the raptor list. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
2. same with the full list of bats? Kind of out of place, just make a small subarticle, list of mammels of ....
   • For now I prefer to have the list in this article. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
3. split Amphibians and reptiles.
   • I would prefer to have amphibians and reptiles together. Authorities usually discuss them as a single group. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will make some small changes in the article itself. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, really well done. I disagree with a spilt for reptiles and amphibians, the herp grouping works well for this kind of article. --Peta 03:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional support - great work, but there are a few places that could use improvement
  • The writing needs tightening up in a few places
  • Mammals
    • "Indigenous settlers first introduced dogs and guinea pigs ... Taínos introduced hutias..." - this may be confusing to readers unfamiliar with prevailing ideas about indigenous colonisation. Is the introduction of dogs and guinea pigs linked to Archaic/Ortoirid or Saladoid cultures, or is it uncertain?
    • "Other species such as Black Rats (Rattus rattus), the Norway Rat (Rattus norvegicus) and house mice" - this sentance changes from plural to singular back to plural twice (rats to rat to mice).
      • Fixed, all plural now. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Mongoose introduction: this reads like it was only tied to the decline of two species of bird (one established, one possible). Aren't there more, at least possibles (like the PR Nightjar)? What about herps - is there anything tying to mongoose to herp declines in PR?
      • Predation by the mongoose is a probable cause (Wetmore, 1927) of the initial population decline of the PR Nightjar (pre 1961). However a study conducted afterwards (1991) found that the ranges of the mongoose and the nightjar rarely overlap and the stomach contents of several mongooses did not contain bird remains. The stomachs contained plant material, insects, centipedes, reptiles, and rats. However in the same study mongooses were observed carrying a Greater Antillean Grackle and a Common Ground Dove. I (and the authors) see no firm evidence to presetnyl assign the mongoose as a cause for the nightjar. Wetmore (1927) atributted the decline of the Quail Dove, the Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) and West Indian Nighthawk (Chordeiles gundlachii) to the mongoose.
      • The Indian Mongoose has been implicated in the decline of the Puerto Rican Boa but again no sound evidence has been collected.
      • So what conclusions can I make? What can I add to the article? Can we trust Wetmore's conclusions? Do we only add recent research? The species is suspected of predating on many animals but evidence has been inconclusive as to the extent of the impact to the Puerto Rican fauna.Joelito (talk) 01:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the section on manatees, CSN is mentioned, but the full name doesn't appear to be spelt out - is this the Caribbean Stranding Network?
      • It was indeed tha Carribean Stranding Network. It has been spelled now. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Bats - has anyone actually made the isolation argument for bats? Are the Jamaican bats, for example, lower in endemics? What about the fossil bat fauna? How many extinct species are known?
      • Fossil records show 3 more species. This is mentioned in the lead paragarph of the mammal section. "Fossil records show the existence of one shrew (Puerto Rican shrew, Nesophontes edithae), one sloth (Puerto Rican Sloth),[13] three leaf-nosed bats, and five rodents." Do you suggest adding the info to the bat section? Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Herps:
    • "The West Indian terrestrial reptile clade is believed to have arrived from a single dispersion by flotsam from South America around 25 to 30 Ma" - this doesn't make sense to me. Single disperal event? That would mean a single common ancestor for Epicrates and Cyclura (among others)?
      • Whoa. Big time screw up. That refers only to Ameiva. I will correct this. It is, obviously, more complicated than that. I will rewrite that sentence using Hedges 2006. [15] He goes into some detail on herp origin. Joelito (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
    • While you mentioned Cyclura cornuta stejnegeri, you didn't mention Cyclura pinguis which, although extinct outside of Anegada would have probably been one of the top herbivores in Puerto Rico prior to extirpation
      • C. pinguis is now metioned in the article. Joelito (talk) 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Inverts: what about the freshwater shrimp and aquatic insects?
    • I have very little on this? You got anything? Joelito (talk) 04:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I am trying to track down some sources. Guettarda 06:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda 04:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• As always thank you for your comments Guettarda. I will be working on your suggestions soon. Joelito (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Wonderful article. The "Rock samples from Sierra Bermeja...." sentence still needs citation, please find one ASAP. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added the ref. Funny thing, that was my own comment. I had gathered the information but forgot to write down where I obtained it from. Joelito (talk) 19:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• I really like it but don't you think a couple of "interwikis" may be required? Congratulations!--Gustavo86 04:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I have searched for interwiki links, and found none for this exact title so far. Moreover, there is no FA requirement of interwiki links. -Fsotrain₀₉ 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support—This is good stuff indeed. (I should disclose that I've copy-edited it by request, but heck, it didn't need much changing.) Tony 07:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment A few things I noticed:

1. "The fauna of Puerto Rico, similar to other island archipelago faunas" - wouldn't "like" be better than "similar to"?
   • It was my understanding that these were synonyms. Am I incorrect? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
2. "The native fauna of Puerto Rico consist of" - elsewhere in the article you treat "fauna" as singular.
   • I initially treated it as singular, it was changed by someone to plural. Which is correct? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
     • It is usually treated as a singular. Rhion 17:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
3. "Of the 349 bird species, about 120 birds breed in the archipelago" - "birds" is redundant here
   • Agree. Fixed. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
4. "Hunting, habitat destruction, and the introduction of non-native species led to extinctions and extirpations." - "extinctions" and "extirpations" are both linked to Extinction, which is not very useful if you click on both to find out the difference
   • The Extirpation article was recently changed to a redirect. [16] I will try to talk with the person who changed it to see if we can leave the stub definition. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
5. (Birds)"Puerto Rico's avifauna has been diminished due to extinction, either by natural forces, mankind's intervention, or extirpation" - what is the difference between "mankind's intervention" and "extirpation"?
   • This sentence is missing an "or". It shoud say "Puerto Rico's avifauna has been diminished due to extinction, either by natural forces, or mankind's intervention, or extirpation". Is it better that way? Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
6. (Invertebrates)"It is believed that most of this fauna arrived at Puerto Rico in the Pleitocene" - should this be "Pleistocene"? Rhion 21:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
   • It should be Pleistocene. Fixed. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the article. Joelito (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Support. Just one more point though: (Birds) Almost half of the species (166) are accidental, meaning that they have been sighted only once or twice - this implies that if the species is sighted for a third time its status would no longer be "accidental". This doesn't correspond to any definition of "accidental" that I am aware of, though I don't know how the term is defined in Puerto Rico. Rhion 14:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I did a brief copy edit on the article, but don't know the material, so didn't actually do very much. Very nice article, confident that any minor issues raised will be easily corrected. Sandy 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support - I made few minor changes (reworded point 5 from Rhion above), but generally it is a good balanced article. A few minor niggles:

1. "Bats are the only extant native terrestrial mammals" - they might be classed as terrestrial mammals but this sentence looks strange, especially as "other terrestrial mammals" is repeated in the next sentence.
   • The important word here is native. The other terrestrial mammals are introduced. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
     • I was referring to the use of "terrestrial" with "bats", but I suppose we don't refer to "aerial mammals" (though I will be writing to Nature to suggest that). Yomangani^talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
2. "The low richness-high diversity pattern is also apparent among invertebrates" - this is the first we've heard of a "low richness-high diversity pattern", so why is "also" in there?
   • The opening sentence, "The fauna of Puerto Rico, similar to other island archipelago faunas, exhibits high levels of endemism and low, skewed taxonomic diversity", has the same meaning as low richness-high diversity. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
     • I apologize - obviously too subtle for me ;) Yomangani^talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
3. In the bird section: "At least six endemic species" has one missing (a brief search make me think it might be this)
   • The species you pointed out was already in the list. I have tracked down and added the missing one. Joelito (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
4. There a few "arguably the most famous/best/most successful" statements which aren't necessary
   • You are free to remove them if you consider it necessary. I would prefer not. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
5. The lead mentions the number of endangered species but there is little specific reference to this later on (other than a repetition of the figures in the conservation section). For example, having read the intro, I wanted to know which two mammal species were endangered.
   • I will add this info. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
6. On a related point, the conservation of the Puerto Rican Parrot seems to have too much weight - it is mentioned in the bird, invertebrate and conservation sections. When other endangered species don't even get a name check that doesn't seem fair.
   • It doesn't seem fair but it is the most important conservation program in PR. Basically conservation in Puerto Rico started because of the PR parrot and funds for other programs stemmed rfom the success of this program. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
     • Maybe add a sentence mentioning that? - I saw there was already a mention of it raising ecological awareness but nothing directly connecting it to other programs. Yomangani^talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
7. It took me a while to comprehend this sentence: "...since many of the invertebrate cave fauna are either guano scavengers, detrivores or predators of the former two." That my be a fault with my brain, but it wouldn't hurt to rephrase it. Yomangani^talk 11:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
   • To me it sounds fine. If you find a way to rephrase it feel free to do it. Joelito (talk) 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
     • It is my brain broken then.Yomangani^talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
       • If it doesn't sound good to you it is not that your brain is broken. Remember that I wrote the sentence so it may make perfect sense to me since I know what it's supposed to say but I might not be conveying that meaning clearly. Joelito (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object until Guettarda's and Yomangani's comments are addressed. Great article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I think that other than the invert thing (which can be added later) my comments have been addressed. Guettarda 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I consider my objections dealt with, as the comments were more to draw them to Joelito's attention than demand changes (I don't think any of those minor points detract from the overall quality of the article), and I've revised my opinion accordingly. Yomangani^talk 21:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kazi Nazrul Islam

Hi - I know this article needs some copyediting and might have some other issues, but I'm sure any poignant criticism will only be obtained here, so I submit this article to your attention and ask for your input and support. Rama's arrow 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Quick comment: Sarat Chandra wasn't a poet, rather a noverlist.--ppm 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. Please mention who has translated that version of Bidrohi and that it is only the first two stanzas and not the entire poem. Having the Bangla beside it, if possible would be useful IMO
2. IMO article should link out to Nazrulgeeti with a redirect page from Nazrul Sangeet, formal accepted terms in West Bengal and Bangladesh for the body of songs written and composed by Nazrul.
3. How many songs did he compose? As far as I am aware, there is no "complete works" of his songs because in the latter stages of his life many of his compositions were not credited to him. Please check up on this, since I am going off of word-of-mouth from Dhiren Basu, a proponent of Nazrulgeeti.
4. A word on the enormous year-long centennial birth celebrations in West Bengal and Bangladesh in 1999 would be useful in the legacy section.
5. Is there a bibliography or select bibliography? Would be useful IMO.
6. What illness was Nazrul suffering from? Is there a diagnosis to be found anywhere?
7. Didn't Nazrul act, in, direct, and sing for Bhakto Dhrubo? Please check up and cite if I'm correct. --Antorjal 02:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Antjoral

1. Done - working on the Bangla suggestion.
2. Done
3. In "Later career" the figure given is roughly 2,600 songs. I couldn't find a full list or tally for his songs. You are correct that some works have not been credited, or even discovered yet. The article mentions this already, while giving a rough estimate of the number songs he composed.

Sorry I had missed that number. Thanks for replying.

1. See Complete Works of Kazi Nazrul Islam - a fork that is linked thru the template. Since the editors opted against a bibliography for Satyajit Ray, I'll have to say that it won't be useful to write those here, especially as they could expand to hundreds of works.

Excellent. Works brilliantly without hogging bandwith. Thanks.

1. The article section "Illness and Later Life" mentions that Nazrul was possibly suffering from syphilis, but that this was not officially diagnosed.

Yes. I had heard the unofficial version too. Just making sure that I had heard correctly. Thanks for the cite.

1. I couldn't find any data on the net for "Bhakto Dhrubo." Rama's arrow 23:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Quoted from the Banglapedia article. I'm sorry for my transliteration scheme which doesn't match Banglapedia's. :) "In 1934 Nazrul became associated with motion pictures. The first picture for which he worked was based on girish chandra ghosh's story Bhakta Dhruva (1934). Nazrul acted in the role of Narada, directed the film, composed songs for it, set them to music and directed them. He also did playback singing for four of Narada's songs. Of the 18 songs of the picture, Nazrul composed 17. He was also associated with other motion pictures such as Patalpuri (1935), Graher Pher (1937), Vidyapati (Bangla and Hindi, 1938), Gora (1938), Nandini (1945) and Abhinay Nay (1945)."

• Support. --Antorjal 01:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments Have not read the whole article. Just a few comments:

1. "...he is widely popular and revered in India" Is he? I doubt! Any ref?
2. Have added Neurosyphilis bit in the lead. Please see if the addition is ok.
3. Wikify Kumudranjan Mallik, Asansol, Trishal, preferably Bengal Regiment.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Dwaipayan I have two links which briefly talk about commemorations of Nazrul in India[17],[18]. But taking your point, I've removed some words to make a more sober assessment. Yes the addition is ok, and will wikify the red links soon. Rama's arrow 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. just making sure "where he became the first Muslim poet to create imagery and symbolism of Muslim historical figures" -- is this claim within Bengal or global?
2. with all due respect, "singla handedly" cannot be attributed to "liberating poetry and literature in Bengali from its medieval mould"
3. "Often compared to Rabindranath Tagore' sophisticated style, Nazrul's poetry is regarded as rugged but unique." -- somehow this sentence doesn't work. The next sentence "Not striving to rival Tagore's standing, Nazrul's use of Persian vocabulary widened the scope of his work" is interesting, as this is the criticism section, this issue caused quite a schism amond the two great poets (I haven't read the whole article, so it might already be there).--ppm 21:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Shmitra

1. This claim is according to what Serajul Islam Choudhary wrote in his article, which is the source for this statement.
2. I've removed the words "almost single-handedly."
3. In none of the sources have I read of a "schism" between Nazrul and Tagore - disagreements yes, but no "schism." I have rectified the sentence structure. Rama's arrow 21:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support well written. Pls check for mild pov:

1. "However, his descriptions of women do not exceed beyond softness and homely roles"
2. "Nazrul worked with intense focus and determination."
3. "greatest modern exponents of Shaktism," -- on this one, the citation link seems broken. I am not doubting his affiliations with the Shaktamot, indeed I am well aware of it, but "greatest" needs some more justification.--ppm 18:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I've addressed your concern. Rama's arrow 02:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. Rlevse 02:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Great work by Rama's arrow. --Ragib 02:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Object: Sorry about the delay in getting to this:

• I don't see the need for alternating between past tense and conditional to express things that happened in the past—instead of saying "Nazrul would also condemn Muslim religious fundamentalism", why not say "Nazrul also condemned Muslim religious fundamentalism"? Many examples of this.
• Punctuation goes outside of short quotes (I fixed a few of these)
• Poem titles shouldn't be italicized; they should be in "quotes". Speaking of italics, only italicize foreign words, not their translations into English. So namaz (prayer), not namaz (prayer).
• &mdash; (either surrounded by spaces or not) is a better choice for a dash than &ndash;, and is far superior to a hyphen.
• I've played around with the first paragraph of "Religion" but I'm hopelessly confused. We have the death of his mother and son, and then we have the success of his songs. What's the connection? Do any sources explicitly suggest that these deaths pushed him into this area? If not, delete the info on his family as irrelevant. I also don't like the implication that's along the lines of "he was impacted by the death of his son, even though his wife had two other sons"—generally someone is impacted by the death of a child, regardless of how many more children he has.
• Having real difficulty parsing this one: "Nazrul identifies two main trends – of passionate devotion and exploration of Earth, the origin and home environment of human beings; the second of attempts to rise above and out of Earth to explore and reach the skies, or heavens". What are all of those lone "of"s? Is "passionate devotion" distinct from "Earth" or is it "passionate devotion... of Earth"? The comma between "Earth, the" is confusing. Also, pick either skies or heavens and go with it—both are English, and mean practically the same thing.
• British vs. American spelling—I've found a few examples of inconsistencies; there may be more.
• What's the connection between all these thoughts (and "work catapaulted his fame" needs to be reworded):

• In these final years of activity, Nazrul worked with determination. His work catapaulted his fame across India. However, Nazrul condemned the adaptation of his songs to music composed by others and insisted on the use of tunes he composed himself. His music programmes gained great popularity and reached a broad audience. In this period, Nazrul expressed complete opposition to Muslim separatism and the Two-Nation Theory.

Hope this helps. Other than these examples, most of this looks pretty good. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 21:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your valuable input. I've addressed (I think) all your points. Please give a fresh assessment. Rama's arrow 22:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice job. Support. --Spangineer^es (háblame) 23:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maraba Coffee

Self-nomination — This is an article I've been working on for some time, including personal visits to the growing sites (and drinking the coffee every day!) The article has had a peer review, and I've attempted to answer all points raised there. Cheers — SteveRwanda 14:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I must admit I've never tried the coffee, but this article is as strong as I like my coffee, and a delightful read too. Solidly referenced, good overall structure, many pictures: I think Maraba Coffee exemplifies the best of Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 15:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Full disclosure: I have offered suggestions and done some tidying, but have not made substantial edits to this article. I find it to be a tasty blend <insert groan here> of geographic, social, organizational and business elements in a manner that many of our articles on organizations could benefit from imitating. - BT 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - A very well-structured article. The topic is very interesting in terms of the importance of Fair trade movement re Africa. Good work Steve. -- Szvest 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up ®}

• Support w/ extra cream and sugar (perhaps if we beat this horse to death in first four posts no one else will bother).--gozar 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. A well-thought out & readable article -- & also provides a useful example for the writing of similar articles. I noticed several minor blemishes (e.g., a few copy edit issues, is there an article currently/proposed for the "Maraba area" of Rwanda?) nature that could be fixed, but none that should in good faith prevent this article from being judged worthy of FA status. -- llywrch 16:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Looks great. Top notch. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Whoah, wait a minute. Now the lead section is one sentence. What happened? WP:LEDE says a lead section "should contain several paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any." I'll work on re-creating a solid lead. Also, there is a lot of info about the coop, the growing, the commodity, etc., but very little about the coffee itself. Is there a review you can find? Lastly, I'll be copy-editing, so hopefully that will fix some of the objections below. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay, the lead is good. I have also copyedited it, and I think the prose is now up to snuff. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object. Striking object. Sandy 23:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) The article is referenced and well organized, but there are prose issues. Here are some random samples indicating the problems throughout:
  • (Pull out of providing support is awkward): Beginning in 2003, PEARL began to pull out of providing support for the Abahuzamugambi Cooperative, as it felt the operation had become self-sufficient.
  • (Redudancy example): The cooperative was able to provide(d) its growers with loans, leading to vastly (that helped) improved living standards - they were able to afford medical insurance for their families, send their children to school, improve their homes and invest in livestock., (and allowed for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance and education).
  • (Another redundancy example): The beer contains the same caffeine content as a cup of coffee.
  • In late 2004, the Maraba coffee phenomenon was extended into the alcoholic beverages market, in the form of a coffee beer. In late 2004, the Maraba coffee phenomenon was extended into the alcoholic beverages market, in the form of a coffee beer. The London-based Meantime Brewery came up with the idea, intended as a form of iced cappucino or digestif, but with alcohol content. (Perhaps, Maraba coffee entered the alchoholic beverages market, with a coffee beer, based on an idea from the London-based Meantime Brewery.)
  • In 2006, the Swedish Minister for Development Co-operation and Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Carin Jamtin, visited Maraba with a view to extending cooperation between Sweden and the Rwandan farmers and ultimately exposinge Maraba coffee to the Swedish speciality market.

I believe all of these sections have been fixed, along with a general copyedit by me. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not as good at analyzing prose problems or correcting them as other reviewers here. Others should have a look: the prose needs polishing, and a thorough copy edit by someone not close to the subject matter is needed. Sandy 17:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Is there any channel by which one can request such a copy-edit from experienced Wikipedians? I can't really take action on this objection myself as I wrote the text in the first place, and it reflects the way I use the English language. I see several changes have already been made but I don't know if those answer this objection yet. Cheers — SteveRwanda 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  Done. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Back for a second look (curious about why Quadell removed one of my previous comments, but not going to worry about it). I share Peta's concerns. I started into the article, correcting a few minor things I found, but continue to see large problems:
    • (Grammar? Also, since we don't find reference or context about the genocide in the article, it's not clear why this is raised in the lead. The lead should summarize the article. The fact that many lost family members to the genocide also requires a cite, which I didn't encounter in the text.) The cooperative and the business they have developed has improved the lives of growers in the area—many of whom lost family members in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide—and allowed for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education.

      There was a reference to the fact that many were members of AVEGA, but I've now added one to the second paragraphs in Origins, along with a reference. The sentence probably needs copyediting of course, as I seem to have forgotten how to communicate in my three years abroad... SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

      Grammar issue fixed. SteveRwanda 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    • (Why is the lead - which is supposed to be compelling and brilliant and enticing us to read the article - telling us how coffee is routinely harvested, washed, and sorted ? Isn't that standard fare? What is special about this coffee?)The fruit is handpicked, mostly during the rainy season between March and May, and brought to a washing station in Maraba where the coffee beans are extracted and dried. At several stages of this process, the beans are sorted according to quality.

      The fact that it is handpicked and during the rainy season is particular to Rwanda... It's possible the latter part could be chopped from the Lede but personally I think it's OK to include some information that's duplicated in more generic articles - msot people won't know the details of coffee processing and shouldn't necessarily have to keep navigating away just to find out those details as they apply to Maraba. SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    • (Prose problems still.) The UNR entered into a partnership with the district for that reason, and the next year founded the Partnership for Enhancing Agriculture in Rwanda was founded through Linkages (PEARL).

      Fixed. SteveRwanda 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

    • (Punctuation problems still.) paying an above-average US$3 per kilogramme,[7].

      Fixed. SteveRwanda 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Much better, but I'd like to see these issues, and Peta's, addressed. Sandy 20:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Back for another look: I'm prepared to support if a few minor things can be addressed.
      • Can you eliminate details from the lead that scream for an inline citation, and deal with them in the body of the article? That will make for a more succinct lead, and will be less distracting to the reader. I dislike seeing very specific details in the lead which demand a cite, because then I go looking for them. Can you change:
        • "The cooperative has improved the lives of growers in the area—many of whom lost family members in the 1994 Rwandan Genocide—by increasing coffee quality and penetrating the speciality market." to "The cooperative has improved the lives of growers in the area by increasing coffee quality and penetrating the speciality market." and then deal with the Genocide statement directly in the text?
        • Same here - I don't find the 300% in the text, so lose time looking for source. Can you fix it by changing, "Farmers' revenues have increased by 300%, allowing for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education." to "Farmers' revenues have increased, allowing for livestock investments, affordable medical insurance, and improved education." and then specifically deal with the 300% in the body of the article? Too much detail in the lead can be distracting. Alternately, if you don't want to delete those specific details from the lead, I suggest citing them in the lead.
      • This person is not notable - do we need his name? Also, again, too much detail is an example of what makes the article read like an advert. The need is to avoid having the article sound like an advert for Community Coffee. Can you change, "PEARL brought Sam Olivieri, a speciality coffee expert, to Rwanda to find a suitable market for Maraba. He put them in touch with Community Coffee, an American seller based in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." Can you change that to, "PEARL brought a specialty coffee expert to Rwanda, who put them in touch with a seller based in Louisiana to help market Maraba." Some work along those lines is needed to reflect the concerns both Peta and I have. There is more of that in the article. Besides all the non-notable individual names in that section, here's another example: "Maraba currently produces 80 short tons (73,000 kg) of export-quality coffee per year, of which 40 tons go to Union Coffee Roasters, 20 tons to Community Coffee, 10 tons to Intelligentsia Coffee & Tea in Chicago, USA, 5 tons to Mercanta Coffee in London, and 5 tons to InterAmerican. Mercanta distributes to small European roasters, and InterAmerican sells to small US roasters.[13]" It would be more encyclopedic if you just told us which countries the coffee went to, without mentioning specific countries. companies. The article still reads like promotional material. Consider a print encyclopedia: wouldn't a reader by very confused if they came across the article in hard print ten years from now, and found mentions of these non-notable names and companies? If you can reduce the promotional feel of the article, I'll support. I also feel like the genocide mention in the lead feels like a promotional/marketing tool.
    • These few things just don't give the article an encyclopedi tone: I do hope they can be fixed. Sandy 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

      OK, dealing with your various points:

      • Lead - I think the genocide reference is important to set the context for the founding of the cooperative, it's not just a marketing tool. I tried referencing it as was, but BanyanTree has subsequently reworded it and removed the cite again. Don't know what you think about that. The 300% reference is gone.
      • Promotional tone in the article - I've removed all references to non-noteworthy people and cut down various other weasel sentences, as required. I tried chopping the names of the overseas companies but it meant the paragraphs didn't hang together, and was also opposed by other users (see Talk:Maraba Coffee for these discussions). The output tonnage has been reduced to country-by-country and moved to the Products section to try to give it more relevance.

      Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

      • Final look. You all have done very nice work and have a fine article, but as long as it reads like promotional material, I'm going to have to pass on voting to feature the article. The current lead reads exceptionally well, feeling like a well-written marketing brochure :-) Wiki is an encyclopedia, and we have to avoid sounding like marketing material or opening that door to future featured articles. Best, Sandy 17:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
        • As I noted on the talk page, the article gives background information on the development of a Rwandan brand of coffee, a story which happens to be a successful one. I don't see why we can't report what reliable sources say about the successful introduction of Maraba Coffee on the market, and about regional effects of this success. If the launch of the product would have failed miserably surely we should cover that failure; conversely, if it happens to be successful, surely we should report on that. However, I don't think I can convince you, so I'm happy if we can agree to disagree. On a sidenote, could you maybe strike the objections of yours that have been adressed to your satisfaction? That way it will be easier to see what remains to be done. — mark ✎ 17:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - While I don't have heart to oppose, because the artcle is very good and interesting, I have some problems with the lead, that I feel is far too long, especially for a not very long article. I feel the lead should be made shorter and more concise. And also a bit of polishing for the prose, like noted by Sandy, would be useful.--Aldux 17:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Lead is fixed, article is now copyedited. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I've been to this coffee cooperative in Rwanda, and I have to support this article because it does a great job of capturing everything that Maraba is about. --Kylan 18:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Object as per Sandy's objections above. The prose is not compelling and at times, quite poor. It needs a copy edit at once.
  Also supporting an article because it captures the feel of a place is not valid reason. Jaw101ie 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some copy edits up until "Geography and Climate" but more needs to be done.

I've finished. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

After another look, I feel the need to change to support. However, I do feel that taking up Sandy's recent suggestions will not be to the detrement of the article. Please do so. Jaw101ie 21:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, very solid work. —Nightstallion (?) 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object reads like literature straight from the organisation; although the product is admirable the authors POV should not be detectable in the text. It needs a copyedit, there is a lot of redundant and promotional language. Plant names should be in italics. The lead is not a summary of the content, and as someone pointed out abouve is too long. Fair use images don't have rationales, and the one in the article adds very little to the article and is of questionable fair use anyway.--Peta 06:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  Responses to this:

  • Plant names now italicised.
  • Fair use image - removed.
  • Copy editing - where can I request it? (see comment above)
  • "Promotional language" - can you point to specific examples? It may seem POV to say the coffee has improved people's lives and is well regarded etc, but these are essentially facts and the references back those up.
  • The lead - it seems like a summary of the article to me. There's a paragraph roughly corresponding to the History section, another corresponding to the Production cycle and the final one detailing customers etc. I expanded it up to three paragraphs during peer review as with around 16-20 thousand characters it seemed to be a 'medium sized' article per WP:LEDE. Some reduction has already been done... is this enough?

  Cheers for the reviews, and please dive in and make appropriate changes rather than listing them here - it saves time! SteveRwanda 10:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I removed the few POV wording bits I could find. I think it's reasonably neutral. All your other concerns have been addressed, I believe. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• The tone still bothers me, phrases like, "the Maraba coffee phenomenon", and "keen interest" don't belong in an encyclopedia article. At the start of the article it claims they were getting paid 33c a kilo, it went up to 75c a kilo - the article does not address whether this increase has been significant enough to improve the living standards of the farmers.--Peta 23:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've gone through the article trying to remove such unencyclopaedic phrases, and rejigging the grammar and sentence structure as well. Have also added a sentence following the 75 cents, addressing the health and education issue with a reference to the PEARL graph which indicates exactly that. Hope this helps. Cheers — SteveRwanda 17:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

  The lead also stil needs work, it is overly specific and too long, Sandy made some helpful comments about this.--Peta 00:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Well-referenced and illustrated. We need more African topics featured. ergot 01:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think I can support now, as many issues have been adressed, even if I'd prefer to see chopped from the lead the part regards the harvesting and handpicking, but it's not so important.--Aldux 16:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Well it is a great article. I'm happy to support, but I would have one request. Could the photograph be improved that is at the top right hand corner of the article. It is slightly out of focus, and there are blown highlights, also what is that bottle in the background. It really detracts from the otherwise great quality of the article. If possible, take another photograph, make sure the lighting is good, don't use a flash (if your camera has one), a clear neutral background (not black or too dark) — again, this is just picky stuff, feel free to disregard. - Francis Tyers · 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Okay so despite the intimidating size of the discussion it looks like there are twelve thirteen editors in support, and one person objecting who apparently hasn't taken a look at the article since the 22 of September. The other objection (the one responsible for most of the threaded discussions) has been withdrawn. — mark ✎ 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support per above. —Khoikhoi 18:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compact Cassette

Self-nomination; I didn't write most of the article, but I did contribute extensively over the past week. I think the article is interesting, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, well-referenced, has good photos, and the subject is significant (particularly to those of us who remember them). I am, of course, open to changes. Any input is appreciated. Kafziel 16:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Looks good, but I have a few issues. Comments as I go...
  • Intro is waaay too technical. Can the technical details be further down in the article, or maybe abbridged a bit? Intro could also have a bit about the decline of the cassette and it's usage today. In general the intro really needs some work to be ready to go on the main page, should be an overview of the entire article.
    • I'm working on rewriting it and will have a more complete intro soon. In the meantime, I moved the technical bits to the second paragraph. Kafziel 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The "Decline" section has a noticable lack of citations, especially with claims like "it is clear that cassettes and related equipment are likely to become increasingly marginalised as time goes on." I don't doubt that's an opinion held by experts, but for an FA a citation is just going to be needed. Also, further down under audio, some more claims needs sourcing: "In many countries with restrictive political systems, cassettes serve as a cheap and easily concealed means for dissidents to distribute banned political speeches to large numbers of people thus circumventing government censorship. In immigrant communities, cassettes carried by travelers have served as an important means to transmit news, messages and culture between separated family members and communities."
    • I never liked that first one, and I've made some changes and added sources. The second one is redundant with a sourced statement in the history section, so I've removed it. Kafziel 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Why no external links? Yeah this is a weird question, usually the problem is that there are too many links... but are there no interesting webpages to link to about this topic? --W.marsh 21:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I dunno, I guess I'm just not a big fan of external links. If a link is amateurish, I don't think they should be on Wikipedia. If it's interesting but doesn't provide any unique information, WP:EL says we don't need it. If a link is credible and provides something valuable, I think it should be used as a source. I think of my "external links" section as the web-based sources in the references section. I guess I could put up a section if everyone feels like it needs one. Kafziel 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I put in a small external links section with a few relevant pages. Kafziel 17:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article is interesting and pretty good -- the main weak spot is underreferencing at certain points -- for instance, in the decline section, it would be nice to have a link or citation to statistical information regarding sales. Pablosecca 04:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Kafziel 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good article. -- EnemyOfTheState 23:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support great article with a good balance of technical and non-technical detail.--Peta 01:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support in light of recent changes, looks much better. --W.marsh 03:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Shouldn't it be renamed to lower-cap 'Compact cassette'? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's a trademarked name, like Compact Disc. Kafziel ^Talk 15:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support looks amazing... everything I could want is in there. Good job!  ALKIVAR™ 02:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater

I think this article meets all the criteria. Well referenced and with appropriate use of images, it provides a comprehensive overview of the game. Covering all the essential aspects, including development and critical responses, the story and its characters, this is ready to be part of Wikipedia's finest. -- Steel 16:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I had a major review today, found no fault. Excellent article. NCurse _work 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I've been watching this article for a while, and am pleased at how it has turned out. The concise plot and number of references is great. Thunderbrand 17:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: can we have spoiler warnings please? Mikker ^(...) 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There's been a huge discussion about spoiler warnings recently (432 kilobytes) which is located at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning/RfC. The upshot of it all was that this is an encyclopedia, not a forum, and that spoiler warnings are a bit unprofessional. Especially as it's pretty obvious that a section marked "Story" or "Plot" is going to contain spoilers. -- Steel 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - It's a good idea to lead critical commentary sections with a link to metacritic or gamerankings. - Hahnchen 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm quite happy to have the metacritic score in the critical response section, but it's also in the lead paragraph of the article so might be a bit redundant. -- Steel 00:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Good job! - Malomeat 04:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very nice article, much better than the original MGS one, even if the number of pictures is small. As I suggested in the Halo FAC, a table in "Reception" is a nice addition. igordebraga ≠ 23:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  Why have a table of arbitrary numbers when prose does the job just as well? I've been removing those tables whenever I see them (save for articles that don't yet have a prose "reception" section). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  I really don't think this is a good place for discussing the table idea, which I personally like, but since this will pass FAC I think all discussions about the article should be done at the article page †he Bread 06:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, great article! jaco♫plane 03:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I'm glad to have helped, but this is really Steel's baby. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Excellent work. Hyperspacey 13:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support This was the driving force behind me voting support in Steel's RfA, and it's turned out better than I could've imagined †he Bread 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support wonderful article Steel, Highway ^Daytrippers 21:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support Can't really get any better than this. Jay32183 03:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, provides sufficient amount of references and adheres to guidelines. --TheEmulatorGuy 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, leaning toward oppose. Prose does not meet standards of "compelling, even brilliant". Examples in the lead alone include:

1. "...scoring an average score..." - Second "score" should be removed, so it flows into "...of 91%".
2. "While it is the third game in the Metal Gear Solid series, it is actually a prequel to the entire Metal Gear series." - Needlessly long. Changing it to something like "The game serves as a prequel to the entire Metal Gear series" makes exactly the same point, without all the extra wording.
3. "Whereas previous games were set in a primarily urban environment..." - "Whereas" used incorrectly. Perhaps "while"?
4. "...the high tech, near-future trappings of previous Metal Gear Solid games being replaced with the simple wilderness." - "simple" is redundant, and bordering on original research in the context.
5. "...the focus of the game is still on stealth and infiltration..." - Redundant. Try "the game's focus remains stealth and infiltration", or somesuch.

• These are the ones I noticed in the lead. As this is not my field of expertise, there are probably more in there. Prose issues inundate the rest of the article, as well. The help of copyeditors unfamiliar with the text should be requested. Since the article is otherwise solid, I'd gladly support once the prose is taken care of. JimmyBlackwing 12:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I've dealt with the specific points you raised, and TheEmulatorGuy has gone through and cleaned up other bits of prose. Deckiller has agreed to copyedit the article as some point (soon) as well. -- Steel 17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support Steel and the rest of the MGS editors have done a great job. --Twlighter 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Trigg

Self-nomination of an article on a Virginia politician and pioneer. Any and all comments/criticisms welcome! --plange 00:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support now that all the suggestions from the two military history peer reviews (here and here) have been implemented. Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Kirill. Rlevse 12:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I find that the opening summary provides too much redundant information that is repeated elsewhere in the text (e.g. who his parents were), without really giving me a sense of why the reader should care about the subject - that is a sense of his importance or the source of interest. Very well written and sourced though. Eusebeus 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not sure what to do here. Adding his parents in lead was something I added per last peer review. What do others think? --plange 23:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a case of colliding philosophies of Wikipedia. One school looks at leads as literary "hooks" meant to draw in the reader, and so gives them a "taste" of the information, without a lot of redundancy. The other school looks at the lead and infoboxes (if any) as the micropedia entry of the subject, while the rest of the article is the macropedia entry. Thus the entry "should" be a summary of the entire article; if someone only read the lead and the infoboxes they should still come away with a more-or-less complete picture, although not as detailed. I tend to favor the latter school, although I don't believe that either camp is without merit in its approach. I think that it comes down to the preference of the author/editor doing the work :) Structure the lead as you think it should be; given the level of support for the FAC nomination, this is unlikely to be a "deal breaker". - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Per Vedexent. I just want to point out that, since the lead constitutes the summary of the whole article, some repetitions are inevitable.--Yannismarou 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support per Kirill. Trashking 21:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Very good article. Nice job.UberCryxic 22:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: with echoed positive sentiments of all above (and probably below :> ) - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The suggestions from the biography peer review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Stephen Trigg/Archive 1) have also been implemented. I just want to laud Plange's perfectionism, who went through three detailed peer-reviews (she just forgot to mention them in her self-nomination!). Congratulations!--Yannismarou 07:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Question. Why there isn'a a picture of Trigg? CG 14:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - unfortunately, as far as I know, there isn't one :-( I suspect because he died so young. --plange 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• The photo of Daniel Boone needs a better caption. Who is he and why is he pictured? Also, if no picture of Trigg is known to exist that ought to be mentioned in the article (if it isn't already, I haven't read it in full yet). I don't like the use of a headstone in place of a portrait but that's just my personal preference. --kingboyk 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• THanks! I've added a caption, let me know if that's what you were looking for. --plange 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• When no picture is available for a specific person, this has not to be mentioned in the article. (Why? I don't understand the reason. The issue is raised during the FAC and it is satisfactorily explained) I also do not like the headstone, but, since there is no picture of him, what is the alternative? There are two solutions: Either the editor makes the infobox with the headstone in the place of the picture either she gets rid of the infobox. Since she chose to have an infobox, there was no alternative. As I have mentioned on another occasion, perfectionism is a nobel goal, but perfect solutions are in scarcity!--Yannismarou 07:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Pardon? I was only making a few helpful personal-opinion suggestions, I thought that was clear (hence "comment" and not "object").

• As for the headstone, fine, if you want me to make it official: I object, it's inappropriate. Wikipedia biography articles are not memorials, and a picture of a grave is not a satisfactory alternative to a portrait. If no portrait is available, leave the image field empty, and move the headstone portrait into the body. --kingboyk 14:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC) PS FAs are supposed to be as close to perfection as we can get. I think a line of "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist" adds to the completeness of the article and is an interesting fact.

• Before User:Kevin Myers supplied me with that photo, I had the map of Kentucky with Trigg county highlighted in that box. Will that be better? --plange 16:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, in terms of objection, I only object to the gravestone being used in the infobox (but I have no objection to that photo being used elsewhere in the article). In terms of personal opinion, if there's no portrait available I'd prefer the infobox to be image-less. What's the norm in this situation? Alas, I've had a quick rummage through FAs and this is the first case I've found where a picture simply isn't available :( --kingboyk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Presumably the infobox would work without an image? It's an unusual situation, granted; if people are disturbed by the gravestone, it may be easier to move it to another place in the article.
• (On a side note: no, we cannot add "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist" to the article unless there's a source we can cite for that. The actual case is closer to "No portrait of Trigg is known to exist, according to research by Wikipedia editors", which isn't quite the same thing.) Kirill Lokshin 23:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• OK, have moved pic, but this means presumably it won't make FA, since it won't have an accompanying photo, right?... --plange 23:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• There's no actual requirement that FAs have any particular image, or that those images be in any particular position. :-) Kirill Lokshin 23:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Per Kirill! This was also the point of my comment. I understood kingboyk didn't oppose and was just suggesting. My point was just that his suggestion was difficult to be implemented in this particular case. And that the reasoning for the lack of picture is not necessary to be within the article. The lack of picture or the gravestone picture are not an obstacle for FA.--Yannismarou 10:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• No, an FA doesn't need to have any image. I don't think that substituting a non-existent portrait with a gravestone is an acceptable compromise. Just be upfront and admit there's no portrait, tough luck reader! :) Starting an article with a picture of a dead man's grave is wandering dangerously near to "memorial" territory AFAIC, and WP:NOT a memorial is relevant when considering FA candidacies. --kingboyk 15:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Not if the memorial has a historical significance and importance. In any case, I don't see an important disagreement here. I just wanted to make clear that I hadn't misunderstood your vote and that I just wanted to give a different perspective respecting your arguments.--Yannismarou 18:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support, of course, with the "I hope you lose the gravestone as the lead image" caveat :) Very nice article and seems to meet the criteria. --kingboyk 20:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee

Self-nomination. Me and another have completely re-written this article in the last few days, and I believe it meets all the FA criteria. — Abraham Lure 14:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Section headings need to follow WP:MOSHEAD. In addition, there is no discussion of the game's development. For a computer or video game, discussion of development history is needed to attain comprehensiveness. JimmyBlackwing 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• The section headings have been fixed to comply with the Manual. I will soon add a Development section. —Abraham Lure 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
• A Development section has been added. It may seem quite sparse, but that's because there is very little to say on the subject. —Abraham Lure 18:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• That's much better. However, the article still has some problems, which I hope will also be taken care of so well:

• The "Characters" section reads like a bulleted list, without the bullets. See something like Final Fantasy VII for ideas on how to write a characters section without a bulleted feel. In addition, you might consider merging the more plot-related elements of the section into the Story section, and then moving Characters above Story, but still under the "Synopsis" heading (see Final Fantasy VII for an example of how this may be done).
• The last two paragraphs of "Allies, enemies and wildlife" suffer from a bulleted list feel, albeit not nearly as badly as the Characters section does. It should still be taken care of.
• The "Gameplay" section is slightly bloated with excessive details, some of which border on game guide material. A prime example of this is paragraph number 4. Also in relation to the Gameplay section, it would be useful to provide wikilinks to relavent subjects. It is not helpful to the uninitiated to discuss "hit points" without linking to Hit point.
• I notice a contraction ("doesn't"), in addition to several uses of "it's" instead of "its". These need to be fixed. The prose in general could use a tune up, but I'll give you a hand with that a little later.
• I noticed a bit of original research in some parts. Examples include "This also adds a tactical depth as Sligs patrolling in the distance can shoot towards the foreground" and "It is notable that Oddworld Inhabitants apparently listened to this criticism and added a Quicksave feature to Abe's Exoddus which did not require a checkpoint." The first sentence may need to go, but the second one could be salvaged by rewriting it into something like "The game's follow-up, Abe's Exoddus, implemented a save feature which did not require the reaching of checkpoints."

• Once all of these issues have been addressed, I'd be happy to throw my support in. It is an interesting, albeit obscure, subject that you've managed to detail quite well. JimmyBlackwing 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've attempted to address all of your concerns: the Characters section has been re-written and moved above the Story section in key with your advice; the allies, enemies and wildlife section has had some changes to try and stop the feel of a bulleted list; parts of the gameplay section have been removed and others rewritten (and wikilinks put in). I don't think it's bloated with unnecessary game-manual details anymore - each feature is, in my opinion, essential to mention; contractions have been removed, and parts of the prose has been improved, particularly that of the Story section; and the original research problem is fixed. Anymore comments would be appreciated. —Abraham Lure 15:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• A huge improvement. I think the prose could do with a little more work before I support, so I'll give the article a good once- or twice-over, instead of running you ragged. JimmyBlackwing 21:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks very much for your help. I'm kicking myself over the various mistakes and clumsy bits of prose you've corrected, but I guess that's why it's always best for more than one person to look over something!—Abraham Lure 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. There's one more thing that I forgot to mention: the images need fair use rationales. I still support the article, but this needs to be fixed. JimmyBlackwing 22:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationales added.—Abraham Lure 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't see anything about the music in the game. If there's anything notable to say about it that should be in the article. Other than that, it looks good. jaco♫plane 18:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for you comment. I don't believe there is anything notable to say about music or it's composition, though I will add a part about it's reception in the Reception section. —Abraham Lure 18:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. I have questions about some of the sources used. Specifically, the GameFAQs.com, the-spoiler.com, www.staff.ncl.ac.uk, and users.telenet.be references appear to be self-published fan sites, which are verboten per WP:RS. Can we find reliable sources to replace their info? The article also seems way heavily reliant on official sources (the game, the manual, and the official website). I won't object if the fan sites are removed as sources, but it would be nice to have more information from third-parties who pass WP:RS. — BrianSmithson 07:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The fansites you mentioned have been removed and replaced, with the exception of users.telenet.be, as the cited information is available nowhere else except the game itself. I have used third-party sources wherever I could; unfortunately, there's just not that many of them. —Abraham Lure 13:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If it's in the game itself, shouldn't the game suffice as your source? And footnote 15 seems to be missing for some reason? — BrianSmithson 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, reference 15 was a remnant of one of the fansites. It is removed. I've also relented and removed the final fansite citation. :) —Abraham Lure 22:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Changing to neutral for now until I have a chance to more closely examine the article. BrianSmithson 04:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose - The majority of reviews for the game will have appeared in print magazines. Back in 1997, no one trusted online publications such as Gamespot and IGN, and no one cared what they wrote. For example, PC Zone have an online archive of their print reviews, and the Abe review is here. I also know for a fact that User:X201 has access to every single review by Edge magazine, so you can back up that score you cite with a quote. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Magazines, we also have access to a whole lot of magazines you can ask for scans and quotes from. They've not all been properly archived yet, but I guess that User:Mitaphane could give you the Next Generation review, if its different to Edge's. - Hahnchen 23:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the links and advice. I have so far added references and quotes from the PC Zone Magazine review, and hope to get content from the Edge review soon. I won't be removing links to GameSpot and IGN, however, because I still hold that they are reliable and as well written as their modern reviews. I believe the "back in 1997, no one trusted online publications" is non-point because all the reviews are readily available to read now, in 2006, when they are trusted publications. The year they were written is irrelevant to this. —Abraham Lure 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Their current reviews may be reliable, but when it mattered, when the thing was released, the amount of influence they had was tiny compared to the traditional press. Citing them as your main source, would be like citing a small town's newspaper for a movie review over Ebert. I've commented on music FACs where they just lazily cite online sources like allmusic and playlouder, whilst ignoring Rolling Stone or the NME, because offline sources were too hard to find. You're leading the reception section with IGN and Gamespot, when in reality what they thought of it wouldn't have mattered to the gaming audience, especially a console game. - Hahnchen 00:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• In the introduction, when briefly mentioning the reception, two of the references are from print reviews, while one is from an online source. The Edge review has now been acquired, and added to the Reception section - it's even leading the Reception section, and joins GamePro and PC Zone as the print reviews that I speak about. IGN has had it's quote removed from the text, though it remains in the table. As I talk about each part, I give priority to print reviews. For example, the Reception section starts with a print review and then discusses onlines ones; the graphics section of Reception starts with print reviews, and then discusses online ones; the criticism section of Reception again starts with print reviews; and the mentioned awards in the Reception section are awards from printed magazines. Is there still a problem?—Abraham Lure 12:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Great article. JimmyBlackwing 22:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support looks good. Rama's arrow 00:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Just out of interest, what happens now? There doesn't appear to be anymore objection (yet) to the article becoming featured, but there is only one actual Support... is that enough? I'm not sure because I'm relatively new to this Wikipedia lark.—Abraham Lure 23:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There's still time to go on this nomination, and I may take the time to read through it more thoroughly and support. You don't need to do much else but wait right now, although the closing admin could possibly have the deciding say if there isn't enough input. - Hahnchen 00:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Well written and referenced. --Mika1h 15:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - I guess this needs some votes, huh. Great article. --PresN 18:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Servile War

[edit] Overview

I am "self-nominating" the article.

Third Servile War has undergone extensive research, editing, and rewriting over the last 6 months. It has undergone a general peer review, a project peer review under the Military History Wikiproject, two rounds of the A-class status review process under the Military History Wikiproject (see here and here), a call for general comment in the Classical Greece and Rome WikiProject, and third party copy editing for grammar, spelling, and style.

I think the article is ready to be subject to the peer-review and evaluation of a Featured Article Candidate nomination. Even if consensus finds that the article is not yet ready for Featured Article status, I hope this process will find other ways in which the article can be improved. Thank you - Vedexent 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Issues

Given the feedback of the reviews to date, I understand there are several issues which may raise comment. I would like to preemptively address them and explain why they have not been "fixed", and why they should stand in the article "as is".

1. Functionalist/Structuralist Style: While many readers and authors prefer a simple narrative style in historical articles (A happened, then B happened because of C, etc.), the sketchy and sometimes irreconcilable accounts of the war have made this impossible. To render the article as a simple narrative would require interpretation of the sources, and the imposition of a particular viewpoint on the reader; there does not even seem to be an unambiguous consensus as to events among modern historians. Instead, I have opted for a more detailed "Historian X says A happened, while historian Y writes the B happened, but it is generally agreed that C happened the following spring". While this is a less "user friendly" approach, and requires a little more effort on behalf of readers, I think that it is more accurate and neutral than trying to impose a personal point-of-view on the reader. The casual reader who does not want to expend the time and energy to follow this approach is still served by the article's infoboxes, and the lengthy and detailed summary lead.
2. Weak Time Line: The timing of events in the article is relatively vague for a historical article: there are no precise dates for events and battles. Given the antiquity of the events and the sources in question this is simply not avoidable. While the order of events is explicitly detailed, exact times are not given other than vague comments such as "the war was now in its third year". The chronology in the article is already a reconstruction based on what is known about Roman politics and the Roman calender: e.g. Consuls were elected at the beginning of the year, for one year, so consular command of the armies would last throughout 72BC. Pinning down events to more precise times is simply not possible with the available sources for this war.
3. Completeness: While I believe the section of the aftermath of the war can stand some expansion - especially by detailing the effects the war had on the Roman approach to the institution of slavery (if there were any) - this is beyond my current research materials, and I believe that the history of the Third Servile War is rigorously detailed in the article as it stands. In short, the article might have room for improvement, but its current treatment of its subject matter is extensive "as is".
4. Complex Footnotes: The footnotes are sometimes complex, citing multiple sources for each general point, and even containing commentary on what aspects of the point a source will talk about. Some might view this as "overkill", but I think it presents the supporting evidence more completely. The inclusion of external hyperlinks to the actual referenced text, where possible, was not something done by me, but something I think is a good idea, so long as the linked sites remain active.
5. Use of primary sources: Some might object that an encyclopedic article should reflect the current historical consensus in a narrative form, rather than reach "back" to the primary sources. However, see point #1 - there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus even in modern scholars. If the article was trying to present a particular point-of-view I would agree; I am not a professional historian, and therefore using primary sources to promote my own original research would be wrong. Instead, the article simply reports and contrasts what is said by the primary historians, rather than trying to interpret for the reader. As such, I don't think that use of primary sources is incorrect in this case.

[edit] Votes/Comments

• Abstain: Much of the article is my work, I'm hardly going to have an objective opinion here :) - Vedexent 20:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support The article is very clear, to the point and well worded. I can not find anything wrong with the article and if there were issues I'm sure all the extensive peer review processes (per your nomination text) you undertook fixed them. Hopefully this won't be the last article you work on. 216.58.13.179 - Tutmosis 22:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, excellent article; all the issues brought up during various the WP:MILHIST reviews have been resolved. Kirill Lokshin 22:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Very well written, comprehensive, article.—Abraham Lure 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support very interesting read, though disappointingly short. Rama's arrow 03:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I am reluctant to support this excellent article for two main reasons:

• The lead seems a bit long to me. Longer than recommended. After all this is not a huge article for such a long lead.
• The "Aftermath" section seems to me a bit under-developped. I don't think that the analysis is as thorough as it should be and I donot think that it gives the full impact of this war.--Yannismarou 11:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: The text of the lead is about 15% of the total length of the article (not counting references and links). I think that's fine. Andrew Levine 17:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Response: I would agree with you with regards to detailing the effects of the war (see point #3 above). Unfortunately, I'm not sure that can be corrected without great and expert input. The historians of the time don't concern themselves much with the changes in the institution of slavery, but go on to deal with "little" events such as the First Triumvirate, the war between Pompey and Julius Caesar, and the collapse of the Roman Republic. The only "evidence" that I can find for the effects of the Third Servile War is the fact that the Romans never allowed such a rebellion again, and a handful of changes to Roman law instigated by the early Julio-Claudian Dynasty which may have been the legal codification of changes of Roman attitude towards slaves, which might have been influenced by the Third Servile War. The connection seemed too tenuous and uncertain to put in as fact, and it seemed downright wishy-washy to put in the way it is. If anyone can find more concrete evidence for the changes in the institution of slavery that the Third Servile War created, I would be most interested to hear of it - Vedexent 19:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Response Addendum: Alternatively, if people think that the circumstantial evidence for effects detailed above is worthy of inclusion, I'll happily put it in. - Vedexent 19:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Kyriakos 21:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support A terrific article, thoroughly reviewed and assessed. Deserves FA in every way.UberCryxic 22:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support and that's only because I think it can be improved. The lead could be cut to the first paragraph without loss. This may raise formatting issues with the large infobox; but do we really need such a large box? Septentrionalis 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response: I agree the lead is long. However, this is a stylistic choice which ties into my "philosophy of wikipedia". Since Wikipedia is not divided into Macropedia and Micropedia volumes like Britannica is, an article must fulfill both aspects. It must provide a "quick fix" to someone looking for a short entry ("What the heck is the Third Servile War? Ah, ok - slave rebellion in Rome which went that way. Got it"), and the interested reader who wants more information. I view the lead and infoboxes as the micropedia aspect of the article, and the "main" article as the macropedia aspect. Thus, leads - in my opinion - should be a brief summary of the entire article; leads should be "mini-articles" in themselves. Now, that isn't a universally held view of how Wikipedia articles should be. You might not agree. But I made a conscious choice to structure the lead and the article that way. - Vedexent 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with the philosophy; I would apply it differently. The first paragraph is an adequate summary of 90% of the article. The other 10% may require a sentence or two to cover. Septentrionalis 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In response to the comments about the Aftermath section, I've expanded it detailing the changes in the institution of slavery that followed the war - although I've been careful to stress that there is no unambiguous connection between the war and changes that followed. I hope this addresses what many people seemed to have thought was the article's "weak point". - Vedexent 00:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, although I still have some reservations about the lead. But it is really a great article.--Yannismarou 07:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: A note of thanks to those who copy edited the newer sections. I know my limits when it comes to spelling, grammar, and literary polish - the help is appreciated :) - Vedexent 09:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object. The pre-emptive arguments are comendable, but they don't solve the problems involved in the referencing of the article. I should point out that I tried to bring this issue up before this nomination in the peer review, but that there was no proper explanation for the use of sources.
  • Most of the article relies entirely on works by ancient writers without any comments on how credible they are to modern historians. Half of the "Modern Works" are more than a 100 years old and the three books on history that have been written after 1968 (including Fagan's TTC lecture) are only referenced to in 7 out of 58 notes, and then often right next to one or several primary sources, which is very problematic. I tried to bring up the problem of referring to primary sources in a way that makes them seem equally credible to modern day sources in the peer review, but without receiving any answer. The PR is in fact still not closed. The argument that there is no consensus among modern historians is not an excuse to simply circvumvent the problem by reverting to the ancient historians. I don't know the fine details of the Servile Wars or how their figures are interpreted, but I believe it is very misleading to present ancient writers alongside modern (and not-so-modern) historians though they were equally valid and relevant interpretations. I would in fact claim that using primary sources in this fashion is a form of original reserach, albeit rather unknowingly. I would also like to quote WP:RS:

    In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.

  • The complex footnotes are indeed very complex and the pre-emptive retort above doesn't solve that problem either. And we're still talking about mostly ancient sources that do not necessarily give an accurate account of what modern historical consensus is. It's also unclear whether all the sources presented (sometimes up to 4 in one note) are actually required or if they're just added as a "reference bonus", which seems very gratuitious to me. Using too many notes and citations is just as bad as using too few. Citations, just like pictures and other requirements are not immune to overusage.
  • There are also a few problematic fact statements:
    • "As the Third Servile War was ultimately an unsuccessful rebellion, no first hand account of the slaves' motives and goals exists, and both Roman and modern historians propose contradictory theories." However, the section does not tell of any of these modern historical intepretations except for that of Stanley Kubrick and the only references in the article are to the ancient sources.
    • "The two most comprehensive (extant) histories of the war by Appian and Plutarch detail very different events, although it is possible that both are abridgements of earlier (and presumably more complete) histories of Livy and Sallust that are lost to modern scholars." Who's guesswork is this? Why is not referenced?
  • Though I am objecting, the overall impression I get from the article is a good one. The prose is good, the article is concise and to the point and it doesn't trail off into tedious military trivia. It's pretty much only the usage of sources that troubles me and especially that the modern historical discussion seems to be entirely ignored in favor of going back to the "true sources" of the ancients.

/ Peter ^Isotalo 20:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response: Yours was primarily the opinion in mind when I commented "Some might prefer a simple narrative style....". Some "corrections" to your objection as your objection distorts facts, and makes some out and out false claims.
  • Both the General peer review, and The Military History Wikiproject peer review are closed. Please check the article talk page for their status. Your claim that "The PR is in fact still not closed" is, at best, an accidental error due to you not checking facts before you respond.
  • Despite your claim that "I tried to bring this issue up before this nomination in the peer review, but that there was no proper explanation for the use of sources.", you received a response about both the compound footnotes, and the use of primary sources here. Just because you might not agree with the explanation doesn't make it "improper". Again, your claim - which is phrased in a manner that might imply that I was presented with article problems which I then ignored and attempted to rush into FAC, especially when compounded with your above erroneous claim - can, at best, be explained as an accidental error on your part. Your "rejoinder" was phrased in manner that could be interpreted as pejorative and dismissive. Since it seemed obvious that there were differences in opinion about how Wikipedia articles should be structured, and that it is not my task to try and "convince" you that I was right (I rather thought we'd just agree to disagree on that point), I declined to get into a debate about the matter; I had given my point, you had given yours, and both opinions are a matter of record and in the peer reivew. The peer review was linked into the nomination text for everyone to see, and to make that a factor in their own support/object choice. I even made explicit mention (and admittedly, defense against) the fact that there were "issues" raised in the review processes. Again, anyone could have - and I hope did - review them, and decide both your and my arguments on those topics.
  • With regards to the footnotes: it is interesting that you invoke Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I would refer you to the section labeled "Check multiple sources". It seems that the use of multiple sources to support a given point is actually recommended in Wikipedia policy, despite your personal opinion reflected in the statement "If you can't reference a single sentence with less than two or three sources then you to find better references or rewrite the sentence. Seriously."[19]
  • Again, on the footnotes: you said "It's also unclear whether all the sources presented (sometimes up to 4 in one note) are actually required or if they're just added as a "reference bonus". Given that the majority of them are directly linked to online versions of the reference texts, perhaps you might check some of them to see whether or not they are "reference bonus" before raising an objection. This totally ignores the whole issue of what constitutes "reference bonus" as it is explicit Wikipedia policy to use multiple supporting references for points if possible.
  • Again on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, your own quoted section reads (with different emphasis):

In general, Wikipedia articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Wikipedia articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections.

Are you claiming that the editions used are unreliable publishers? Are you suggesting that the Strachan-Davidson commentaries on Appian were unedited? Are you suggesting that the errors in a primary source are not compensated for my presenting as many alternative views as there seem to be in the sources?

• • "I don't know the fine details of the Servile Wars or how their figures are interpreted, but I believe..." - If you are truly worried that the use of primary sources is a horrific distortion, I would recommend that you look into secondary sources (The Enemies of Rome is a good one, see the articles reference section for details on that book) to see if this is the case, rather than basing objections on "might have beens" that you haven't even looked into yet. Then you would know and not have to rely on vague belief. NO point in the article is beyond being challenged, provided that there is evidence and references which support a contending view. Please provide them, rather than basing objections on personal fears and vague notions.
  • It is quite clear that you have strong opinions on the use of sources, footnoting and other issues. Your views may even have merit. However, your objections seem based on the fact that the selection of research materials, and style of referencing does not match your own personal style. While there is not unambiguous support within the Wikipedia guidelines for article creation that supports the style and materials incorporated in the article, neither does there seem to be explicit policy to reject them either, and thus I conclude that the style of the article falls within the acceptable range of research and presentation. Despite the article being submitted to as many peer review and commentary processes as I could find on Wikipedia, your objections are unique to you. I can only conclude that your objections are not widely shared, and therefore not part of the consensus view. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Unlike the objector, I think referrencing both ancient historians and modern ones next to each other is perfect. Yes, there are problems inherant in using ancient sources, but that is completely compensated for by showing the differences in the sources, and why, rather than taking them as nothing but fact. - PresN 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Thoroughly engaging, it manages the seemingly impossible: to weave historical narrative and historiography together into a coherent narrative. Referencing is extensive and comprehensive. Use of images, sectioning and maps is outstanding. Well done to all editors. Batmanand | Talk 19:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, and Hail Crassus! You may wish to add a reference to Spartacus (film) in a section detailing the war in "pop culture" (i.e. books, films, tv shows, etc.). Either way, I still support this article as an FA. Good work. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 00:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Response Thanks :) This was part of an earlier draft, and was removed. The rationale was that the literary phenomenom centers mostly around the person of Spartacus and his "valiant struggle against the powers-that-be", and thus more appropriate in the Spartacus article, which is evolving a section like you mentioned. Therefore, I focused the article on the actual history and historiography rather than the cultural relevance which was part of material elsewhere. - Vedexent (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Righteo. Goiter McWilliostein, P. I. ^{You can't control me!} _{I'm a P. I.!} Save Stargate SG-1! 10:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment—Needs a copy-edit; see my run through the top bit. Good otherwise. Tony 12:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• Response: The last six editors for the article (since Sept 24th) have done nothing but copy edit the article - and since it went to review at least two people have done full-article copy edits. Feel free to correct any other grammatical or structural errors you find, however. - Vedexent (talk) - 12:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth International

Work by a number of contributors from different political backgrounds has produced a balanced article on this Trotskyist organisation coupled with more information on it than is available elsewhere on the web. It has recently received a peer review (Wikipedia:Peer review/Fourth International); all the contributors to the peer review have agreed that it is now ready to be put forward as a featured article candidate. This article was a candidate back in September 2004, and the objections raised then have also since been addressed. Warofdreams talk 00:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Very Interesting Article. Comment A few sentances in the lead were potential non-NPOV so I added ^{[citation needed]} tags. With the references as well, there are some wikilinks to Authors. For the Authors where their aren't articles...they should be either all red links all no link at all. Not some and somewithout. Todd661 11:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've referenced two of the three statements you tagged. The authors referenced without articles are linked because they are notable; those who are unlikely to merit an article aren't linked. I've written a couple of articles on those who were redlinks, and may write some more soon. Warofdreams talk 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional Support. Nice article, and informative. I'll support if you make year-links consistent. Right now, some lone years are linked (e.g. 1945), and some are not (e.g. 1946). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Partial dates indicates that years shouldn't be linked unless they are part of a date (e.g. June 1, 1947), although not everyone agrees. But randomly linking some and not others in not ideal. But hey, these are nitpicks. It's a great article, impecably sourced, well-writen, and deserves to be featured. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've removed all the lone year dates, except for the first mention of 1938, which as the year of foundation, seems particularly important. If you'd like that removed as well, go ahead, but I think it might be a useful link. Warofdreams talk 17:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  Indeed it might. Thanks! – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I would like to support, but the references, while extensive, are limited alomst entirly to non-academic sources. I would very much like to see some academic journals and books among the references.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  The references do include several from Revolutionary History and What Next?, which are the closest things to academic journals in the field. There may be some more general political works which could reference a few of the more general points in the article - I'll see if I can locate anything - but it is unlikely that it would be possible to reference the detail in the article from these. Warofdreams talk 03:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

  Perhaps you will find that ~300 articles interesting :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link; it may prove useful, but as I say, almost everything is either already used as a reference or only mentions the Fourth International obliquely. That said, there are a couple which might be useful sources - I will search through. Warofdreams talk 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Not perfect, but definitely among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman ^Talk 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It's clear that a lot of work has gone into developing this page. The comments above are also very useful, and should be followed to help improve the page further. --Duncan 08:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. All the concerns from the peer review have been addressed, and although it can still improve, it is solid FA standard. Yomangani^talk 12:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mormon handcart pioneers

Self-nomination, though this article has involved a lot of collaboration. The article presents an interesting story, it's well documented, and it's about a little known episode of the history of the American West. We're approaching the 150th anniversary of the disaster that cost more than 200 lives from the Willie and Martin companies in October 1856 and of the dramatic rescue effort that saved the lives of the other 800 emigrants. There are plans for a PBS documentary about these events. I think this article meets featured article standards. BRMo 01:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I notice that the article is written primarily from a Mormon perspective, and the article relies heavily (entirely?) on sources by Mormon authors. While these sources are surely valuable, there needs to be more info in the article from outside accounts with less of a cultural attachment to the subject. Andrew Levine 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

One of the cited authors, Wallace Stegner, was not a Latter-day Saint, though he was familiar with Mormon history and culture from living in Utah during his youth. He's the only non-LDS historian I know of who has researched and written on the history of the handcart companies. We can certainly add some citations to his work, though Stegner's perspective didn't seem substantially different from that of the LDS authors. BRMo 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Arthur King Peters is also not a member and is also one of the named references in the article. --Trödel 19:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the section on responsibility for the tragedy, trying to reflect viewpoints that are critical of the planning and decision-making by the church's leaders, as well as viewpoints that are less critical. Stegner is now cited several times. BRMo 03:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment again: It almost has my support now, there are just a few things I think should be made clearer.

• "their inclination toward social and political unity" What kind of social/political unity?
• "Many a father pulled his cart, with his little children on it, until the day preceding his death." are Hafen/Hafen quoting a pioneer, or a church elder, or are these the Hafens' own words? Andrew Levine 16:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits and comments. I've clarified that Hafen/Hafen were quoting pioneer John Chislett and have expanded the section on hostility and persecution to identify some of the Mormon beliefs and practices that aroused suspicion. — BRMo 21:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Comments: These are only my opinions, and may be completely wrong. "...walking from Iowa or Nebraska to Utah."

Perhaps it would look better if we stated that they were traveling to Salt Lake City, Utah, rather than just Utah. Also, were there specific cities in Iowa and Nebraska they departed from?

"...primarily due to their practice of withdrawing from secular society and gathering in specific locales to practice their unorthodox religious beliefs."

You might need to add a source for this being the primary reason. Also, I'm not sure the word "unorthodox" is the best choice: to me, it has a negative connotation, implying that something is incorrect.

--Lethargy 19:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. The article later provides the information that 7 of the companies left from Iowa City, Iowa and the last 3 companies left from Florence, Nebraska (now part of Omaha), and that the desination for all was Salt Lake City. To avoid cluttering the lead with too much information, I'm leaving it as "Iowa or Nebraska to Utah"; I might have added the cities if they had departed from only one place. But this is an editing decision—I don't own the article, so if you strongly prefer to include the names of the cities, feel free to make the changes. Regarding "unorthodox," I've changed it to "peculiar" (Latter-day Saints commonly refer to themselves as "a peculiar people"), and I've added a reference to O'Dea as a source. BRMo 00:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't come back with a support vote yet, but I'll try to finish looking over the article later today or tomorrow. --Lethargy 20:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This may be too nitpicky, but can sources be added for "most of these emigrants paid their own expenses" and "Emigrants would depart from an English port (generally Liverpool)"? Also, something about the sentence "The companies also appointed sub-captains, who generally also were returning missionaries, for each 100 emigrants." doesn't flow well, but I can't think of a perfect replacement off the top of my head. --Lethargy 03:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added the references that you've suggested and re-written the sentence on "sub-captains." — BRMo 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I am very close to supporting this, but there are a few remaining issues:

• A few citations are still needed (I tagged them in the article)
• I don't think this article would be comprehensive without the account of the three young men who helped the Martin (or Willie?) handcart company cross the sweetwater river. It is a very popular story among Latter-day Saints, and IIRC it was in the article but had to be removed for copyright reasons.

We could expand this a little bit, but it is good for now. --Lethargy 20:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• There are three sentences which mention problems with the handcarts, but don't specifically mention what was the matter: "When the companies reached Florence, additional time was lost making repairs to the poorly built carts." "The construction of the handcarts was modified to strengthen them and reduce repairs. The handcarts would now be regularly greased." Can you dig anything up about why the repairs had to be made and the design improved?

--Lethargy 04:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I feel my concerns have been addressed. This is a great article. --Lethargy 02:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support now. Andrew Levine 16:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Article well-written, abundantly illustrated and especially well referenced. A+! — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Sections don't conform to WP:GTL, and section headings need attention per WP:MOS. Notables are not sourced. It would be good to get a copy editor to work on the lead, and shorten some of the sentences. There are random prose and puncutation problems throughout, example, "Across Iowa they followed an existing road about 275 miles (443 km) to Council Bluffs a route that is close to current U.S. Route 6." Sandy 20:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I've organized the sections and section headings with attention to WP:GTL and WP:MOS, added sources for notables, and gone through the entire text giving it another copy edit. I've shortened several of the longer sentences and hopefully fixed most of the other problems. Of course, assistance from other copy editors is always welcome. — BRMo 03:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Sandy 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song)

Having just seen the promotion of our article on the final collaborative work (to date) of the duo best known as The KLF (2K's "Fuck the Millennium") it's quite fitting that my next submission is their debut single, "All You Need Is Love" by The Justified Ancients of Mu-Mu (The JAMs). I believe that the article meets the Featured Article criteria and is of the same high standard as "Fuck the Millennium", making it one of Wikipedia's best articles on songs.

1. Well written. The article is written by the same team as our previous successful nominations and, if anything, I believe is even more compelling. I'll leave you to judge this, but all I can say is that coming back to this article after some time I found it to be an enjoyable read.
2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. Yes. It's referenced, and as always there's been no cherrypicking. Nothing much in the negative was found about this song, although we have mentioned a negative review of the album on which it was contained to try and add some balance. The number of references is lower in this piece since at this time The JAMs were very much an underground band whose exposure was limited to the British music press. Nonetheless, I believe there are no uncited assertions of any significance.
3. Stable. Very much so. The article had not had a major edit since June, until I tweaked it yesterday in preperation for this FAC.
4. Appropriate length. I believe so. The article is comprehensive without being over-long.

Only one fair use image is used, the cover of the picture sleeve featuring a defaced James Anderton. Two audio samples are provided - one of the original release, one of the remade version. All three media have fair use rationales applied. One of the audio samples is a little over the recommended 30 seconds - I will edit and reupload if that is felt to be a problem.

The article has received the GA badge and undergone a peer review. --kingboyk 09:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, seems to meet the FA criteria unless I missed something. — Wackymacs 12:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (Withdrawn), needs some pictures other than the cover of the single. Teemu08 18:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Erm... Such as? There's no other relevant picture to add that I can think of. FAs aren't even required to have any pictures that I'm aware of. Of course if you have a free image of The JAMs in 1987 we could use it but I don't know of such a picture and we couldn't claim fair use on a portrait as it's not central to an article about a song. --kingboyk 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Teemu08, that's not a valid reason to object. Take a look at the FA criteria, images are not even required. — Wackymacs 07:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - This is the best song article I've seen on Wikipedia so far, and wipes the floor with the other FA song articles. LuciferMorgan 16:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Gosh (blushes). I think we might have to quote that on WP:KLF :) Thanks very much. --kingboyk 17:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Well written, nice song clips, great referencing. Solid FA candidate. Nice work as usual, Kingboyk. Wickethewok 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you, but I can't take all the credit :) --kingboyk 18:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Comprehensive, well written and shows what WP can do. Probably the most comprehensive source of info on the web. Check out WP:KLF and you'll see how many similar standard articles are waiting their term for FA candidacy. Me677 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India

A good, comprehensive, well-referenced article, which has been FACed once previously (archive), through peer review thrice (1 - 2 - 3). All objections since these reviews have been satisfied. The main concerns of poor style of writing have been corrected solely due to the efforts of users Rama's Arrow and Sundar. See changes done since previous FAC: [20]

--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 04:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support Many months of work have been put into weeding out grammatical and prose problems. Rama's arrow 04:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comments. Rama, sorry to be pernickety, but it's kind of redundant to post "Strong support" when you're one of the two sole contributors, as announced just above. It's a lot better than last time, and congratulations on your work. However, I'd like to see further improvements to the writing during this FAC process. I've copy-edited the lead as an example, and although a few of my changes result from merely personal preferences, many of them were technically necessary.

A few more queries, just from the lead:

• By "government" and "state" (lower case preferred), are you referring only to the central (New Delhi) government? If the three texts at issue have different scope in this respect, it will need to be explained.
• So only one of the three texts is legally enforceable. This needs to be fleshed out later in the article. What would happen, for instance, if the central government decided to ignore its obligations under the "Principles": nothing? If so, has their true status been debated in India?

This issue is covered in the "Criticism" section. Yes there is a debate going on about these very issues. Basically the people of India may remedy the situation at election time. Rama's arrow 14:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• You might mention in the lead when they were developed and promulgated. In 1947?
• I'd minimise the number of dictionary-type links: you need to focus your readers on the really important links.
• There's a slight tendency to be repetitive in the lead (but I haven't checked the rest of the article in this respect).

Tony 10:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Replies to Tony:

• I've added a note to the notes section explaining the use of "state", "State" ad "govt."
• explained above
• there is a whole separates section on "Genesis" explaining promulgation; redundant to add more.
• to be done
• to be done

I'll be very busy in the near future, so I would request Rama's Arrow to look into further comment. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Tony: There is no redundancy - you are obviously unaware of this article's development. Don't take Shreshth's exaggeration literally - he has developed this article for over a year now. I only helped in the last legs. And not to be uncivil or rude, but I don't expect others to tell me to what degree I should support or object on issues. I will work on your other suggestions as per Shreshth's reply above. Rama's arrow 14:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I will comment on your "Strong support" if I find it inappropriate, coming as it does immediately after your nomination text; this is a review process, not a vote. The guidelines now insist that supporters who have been significant contributors to an article should state this. Here, if you declare strong support for your own work in what is essentially a review process, you should probably remind us that you were a contributor, again. Tony 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, this is not my own work. Yes I have helped in copyediting to a large degree, but this is not proportional to the massive amount of work Shreshth has done himself. I am also not a co-nominator. "Support" and "Object" is a common way to express your views here. I happen to feel Strong Support for this article. Case closed. Rama's arrow 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Object As per above KYMYK 12:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I welcome you - it is rare to find one who just registered few days before and coming to this page with less than fifty edits to the Project: you are certainly well informed, and it is really nice that you are taking interest in various matters pertaining to wikipedia. I am looking forward to some interesting value addition to wikipedia as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. --Bhadani 12:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support reading the article I found it well read and don't really see any objections per fac criteria. The only thing that stuck out for me is the bolding through out the article of some names but ofcourse this is only a personal preference. - Tutmosis 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support, is definately compelling to read, and fufills all the other criteria. Daniel.Bryant 23:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - I have followed the article since its last nom and I think its a very well written article now -- Lost^(talk) 03:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Object.Neutral These are my concerns:

• The article is incomplete. It covers history, political implications, amendments etc. very well, but where is the role of the courts and of the jurisprudence? Just 2 judicial decision are mentioned in the begining of section 2! Afterwards we have nothing else mentioned. I cannot believe that in a country, whose judicial system is based on the case-law, the courts and the jurisprudence do not deserve mentioning in all the other sections. Haven't the courts influenced the interpretation of all these articles? Aren't there any milestone decisions concerning freedom of press, freedom of religion or right to equality? In section "Critisism and analysis" again nothing about the courts? In the article these important parameters are almost inexistant. Hence, as a jurist I regard the level of analysis as inadequate.
• Of the 77 citations 51 are cross-references to constitutional and other provisions. Only 26 inline-citations (and 10 references) constitute an effort to interpretate, analyse and elaborate on the legal texts through other sources and writers. All the other citations just link us to the text of the Constitution itself or to other legal provisions without further alalysis. I have serious doubts about the FA level of such a research.
• Less important: Some links in the "See also" section are not necessary there. They could easily be incorporated within the prose of the main article.--Yannismarou 07:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Yannismarou

1. Firstly, I don't think you should generalize based on what happened with the U.S. Supreme Court. Only Indian court decisions relevant to illustrating the FR are stated. Secondly, both Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties are non-justiciable, which leaves only fundamental rights. Of these, only court cases relevant to fundamental rights are given - we are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation. If I may add some historical perspective, the Indian constitution was written 150 years after the U.S. constitution, thus incorporating many of the judicial decisions made on the principles of the U.S. constitution. Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions.
2. I think your perspective is wrong - in your first point, you admitted that implications, amendments are well-covered. What analysis is given, is properly cited. This is an article about a constitution, so the provisions are stated (Wikisource) and analyzed (with extra citations). All aspects of this article are well analyzed, for which there are enough citations.
3. On citations, you should remember that these are not compulsory for any FA. Since most data has been adequately cited, I don't see a basis for lack of citations.
4. The "Criticism" section deals with the broad debates, questions and challenges. It is not inadequate just becoz there has been limited number of legislation or court decisions affecting the FR. Rama's arrow 15:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
5. To the Point this article is about FR/DP/FD. We run the significant risk of deviating too much into analyzing India's socio-economic problems. Thus we've limited giving examples and analysis solely to explain the constitutional provisions in question. Rama's arrow 15:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: "we are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation" - Why not? At least in a narrow, legal sense, judicial interpretations should be covered. "Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions" - well, let's hear about the few landmarks that there have been. Tony 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Tony, judicial interpretations have been covered as far as possible. The "Critical analysis" section shows all the judicial constraints which are felt, like the ambiguity of wording, some rights such as freedom of press not defined.
  • By "Post-WWII there have not been as many constitutional landmark decisions", I think Nirav was referring to the US judiciary. In India, the landmark court cases have been listed, as well as bills passed have been listed (off the top of my head: Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala, Bodhisattwa Gautam, Electricity Bill, and all the Constitutional amendments, which are the most important, as well as all the Programmes and Schemes implemented) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Reply to Tony We have to limit this article to explain and analyze the FR/DP/FD. To this end, as Shreshth reiterates all practical examples have been sufficiently provided. We are not here to examine how the courts have dealt with constitutional cases. We don't need to mention a large number of cases which have a greater implication on society than the interpretation of these constitutional provisions. It is a fine line, a tight-rope walk.
• Plus, why is the generalization being made that India has had a large number of constitutional cases relevant to this article? This article deals well with the formulation of the doctrines between 1947-50, and their interpretation and implementation through the decades till today. Rama's arrow 16:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Tony 03:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Rama's arrow:My concerns are still actionable, but I turned my "reluctant objection" to "weak objection", in order to clarify my position. Rama's arrow recognizes that "this article deals well with the formulation of the doctrines between 1947-50, and their interpretation and implementation through the decades till today". So, where are the courts through all these decades? Don't they deserve a more thorough mentioning? And I donot think that the length argument stands. FA articles now are up to 100 Kb. We will not sacrifice analysis in favor of the size. Thorough covering of the material is our importance. "We are not here to illustrate how the Indian courts have worked on constitutional implementation". I agree. But, when the the courts influence the "implementation through the decades till today",we have to talk. And I repeat: I cannot believe that in a case-law country the role of the courts was so limited. And, even if the jurisprudence of India is influenced by the American jurisprudence, this does not mean that it does not exist. Especially, in terms of implementation of the constitutional articles, the role of the courts is fundamental all around the world. I think the article is very very good, but in this particular aspect it is weak. This is my only concern. In any case, my intention is not to fight the article. Whatever I believe, if the large majority supports it, the article will prevail.--Yannismarou 16:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Second Reply to Yannismarou - ok, first off I completely respect your argument that any important court cases and decisions should be well-covered in this article. I respect your motives, and I believe that you're not being unreasonable. The FA director is obligated to study the issues raised in an FAC and not just go by the tally of "opinions." For the rest of the duration of this FAC, I will search for fresh examples of court cases affecting this article. I will add any data I can find to assuage your concerns. But to reiterate - for the purpose of illustrating the Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties, Shreshth has already provided example court cases. I brought up the U.S. judiciary only to illustrate a difference in perspective - the U.S. has seen tones of cases on constitutional issues. India has seen less, and even less when it comes specifically to FR/DP/FD. Nevertheless, I'll do my best to make sure that we aren't missing any relevant examples. Thanks, Rama's arrow 16:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update I apologize for my ignorance regarding this question. Please see these recent edits in which I've added details of some major court cases to different sections of the article. I will continue to search for more examples Rama's arrow 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Further comment. Recognizing Rama's arrow effort I've turned my "objection" into "neutral". I'll wait the additional efforts of Rama's arrow and of the other editors, in order to decide whether I'll support or not the article. In any case, the first samples of this effort are positive.--Yannismarou 17:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support: I have watched the development of the page from its earliest stages. A well written article, which developed and matured over a long months. I think several comments have appeared as some of us may not have heard of these things before, and we all learnt about these things here only - I too learn many things from wikipedia. These are unique features of the Constitution of India, and similar comparison does not exist in the world. This aspect of the Indian constitution is a constitutional heritage of the constitutional practices of the modern world. Moreover, I think that there is nothing like "ownership" of articles, one should write and forget - bringing the issues of who wrote what and when and how much may bring subjectivity to our discussion to decide the merit of the article to be elevated to FA status. --Bhadani 01:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

True points. I apologize to all for the irrelevant debate about contributions. Rama's arrow 01:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support - 77 citations, lots of pictures, imformative info. What more could a reader want? Also the neatness, compared this to how how most Indian law/politics pages look. They are metamorphized by edit wars. This one is so clean, and exceptional by wiki standards. Its got 20x more valid sources than the Constitution of India page. The only issue is that the criticism section is a bit long.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Support- For the most part, the article is excellent and it definitely deserves to be FA. However, due to the significance of the topic, I am judging it by a much higher standard than what I usually look at in FA articles. My only regret with the article is that it does not include more landmark cases in the text. I believe someone else pointed this out too. At the same time, I do not believe it is enough to stop it from being a FA. I would definitely encourage the editors to include (even if it is just wikilinking) some more court cases. It would be a great contribution to do so. --Blacksun 02:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Update I apologize for my ignorance regarding this question. Please see these recent edits in which I've added details of some major court cases to different sections of the article. I will continue to search for more examples Rama's arrow 17:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong support, yes I helped out with reviewing and copyediting. Excuse me for reopening a closed issue, but I feel that there was a minor communication gap regarding Nirav's (Rama's arrow) vote. True to local cultural traditions, Shreshth attributed a lot more credit to Nirav and even more disproportionately to me. Since Tony didn't know this, I don't fault him for what he said and similarly Nirav's feelings are justified too. Also, regarding the Blacksun's concern above, let me tell that I had a similar concern and was very anal about several things during the final unofficial review ahead of this FAC. And now I'm convinced that it meets the FAC criteria. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 09:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your point, Sundar. I just want to say that this is not a vote, but a forum for establishing consensus. Tony 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, though most of us know this, it would be better if it's internalised into the process itself. Perhaps a form-based interface would help? -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support, leaves nothing to be desired. —Nightstallion (?) 14:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I made a few improvements in the article, and now feel its worth FA level. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Since most of my concerns seem to have been addressed, I feel this is the right thing.--Yannismarou 09:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Object: further comment about 1a. It's particularly important in an article on legal issues that the prose be crystal clear and easy to read. Why is it that I can still easily find glitches in a randomly chosen section, such as these from "History"?
  • In the lead, "Fundamental Duties" is in italic and is unlinked, whereas the other two sections are different in both respects—could confuse.
  • "In 1928, the Nehru commission, composing of representatives from Indian political parties proposed constitutional reforms for India." "Composed", not "composing"—who's copy-editing it to allow that slip to remain? Comma after "parties" would be much easier to read, marking off the boundaries of the nested clause. There's another "composing" a few sentences later.
  • Overuse of additive back-references and clause links: "also called for"—remove "also" for better, stronger flow; "as well as socio-economic rights"—just "and", unless adding this item is somehow unexpected or notable (doesn't seem to be).
  • "Committing themselves to socialism in 1936, the Congress leaders ..."—"CongressionAL leaders"? (Unless that's too American ...). Otherwise "the leaders of the Congress". Is a reference required for such a sweeping statement? (Or just a tiny bit of detail—under the leadership of ... or inspired by ....?)
    • Their is actually a political party named Congress. The sentence should probably clarify that better. The equivalent of American congress would be Raj Sabha and Lok Sabha. --Blacksun 14:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The current version has: "..the leaders of the Congress party...". So this shouldn't be a problem any more. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • "The task of developing a constitution for independent India"—"an independent India" would be idiomatic. "which has to be passed by two-thirds majority in both houses of the Parliament." Sorry, deictics are a bore, but basic to readability—"a" two-thirds majority; you could drop "the" before "Parliament" if you wanted to (idiomatic). Consider "must" rather than "has to", which is a bit informal here.
  • "The process was influenced by the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the U.N. General Assembly on 10 December 1948. The U.N. called upon all member states to adopt these rights in their respective constitutions." Remove "respective". Replace "The UN called" with "The Declaration called", for required cohesion (I presume you're not referring to another call, apart from the Declaration?) "Upon" better as "on", but that's my personal preference for plain, direct English; the topic is complex enough already, without old-fashioned words. Tony 01:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• I have given the article another copyedit. Please tell if it was sufficient or not. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
  • All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just had my first look, and found some awkward prose - these are only random samples from the first section I looked at, suggestive of further copyedit needs:
  • In 1919, the Rowlatt Acts gave the British government the powers of arrest and detention, conduct searches and seizures without warrants, restrict public gatherings, and censor the press. (Is it powers of conduct searches or powers to conduct searches? Is it powers of restrict public gatherings, or powers to restrict public gatherings?)
  • In 1928, the Nehru commission—comprising of representatives from Indian political parties—proposed constitutional reforms for India. (Comprised of?)
  • The task of developing a constitution for independent India was undertaken by the Constituent Assembly of India, comprising of elected representatives under the presidency of Rajendra Prasad. (Another comprising of) Sandy 18:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
    • In the first point, the "powers "of" applies for the first case, of "arrest and detention." But the powers is automotically carried over to the others in succession, as it is not grammatically appropriate to keep going "the powers of.... the powers to...." Rama's arrow 23:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
      • All your suggestions have been looked into, and taken care of. Please tell if there is anything more required. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 05:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. The article also appears to be a candidate for a cooperative editing award (if there is one). -- Fullstop 10:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Again, not perfect, but easily among Wikipedia's best. - Taxman ^Talk 23:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Approval. --Nearly Headless Nick 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked whether I'd review my Object, and inspected the text hoping to be able to do so. But at random, my eyes fell on lots of little problems, some of them things that anyone should be able to pick out. This can't possibly be considered "professional" writing as required.
  • State or state? Be consistent.
  • There are still mistakes in the deictics; I know that they're tedious, but they're basic to readable English (let alone the required "professional" standard here): "Living wage and safe working conditions for citizens must be ensures ...". "A" living wage, or pluralise it.
  • "Gandhian philosophy, originally propounded by Mahatma Gandhi (pictured) has greatly influenced the Directive Principles." This is a caption; do you really need to add "(pictured)"? Who else would it be, given the theme of the caption? And his name twice here is awkward.
  • This paragraphs is unsatisfactory: "The Directive Principles commit the state to raise the standard of living and improve public health,[39] organise agriculture, and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines. The State must also safeguard the environment and wildlife of the country.[40] The protection of monuments and objects of national importance and separation of judiciary from executive in public services are also obligations of the State.[41] The State must also strive for the maintenance of international peace.[42]" Why a comma after "agriculture"? Also also also. It would be better reworded as a formal inline list, even though it would be a long sentence. That would avoid the redundant alsos, and the awkward attempts to vary the pro forma wording in each item. It's easier to read if it's not varied. So save the repetitions by casting it as a list.
  • "Article 31-C, inserted by the 25th Amendment Act of 1971[30] states that"—comma missing somewhere ...
  • Remove "from time to time"—it adds nothing.
  • Please fix the following list, which is apparently cast as a single sentence. You need lower-case initial letters for each item, and "the" is missing from all but No. 5. Why bother numbering them if there's no other reference to them by number? Bullets would be smoother.

The six fundamental rights are:^[8]

1. Right to equality
2. Right to freedom
3. Right against exploitation
4. Right to freedom of religion
5. Cultural and educational rights
6. Right to constitutional remedies

Or better still, do what most FAC reviewers would like: a running prose list, with the items just separated by commas. Tony 15:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Shreshth has addressed all your concerns. Just one clarification from my side. The terms "state" and "State" have been deliberately used, the rationale being explained on top of "Notes" section. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No, Shreshth has addressed about 5% of my concerns, which involve the whole text, not just the examples I provided. Tony 01:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Done. I've even linked the "state" and "State" note to the first occurence of "State" in the lead. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to ask an ignorant question, but what is this article trying to achieve? I read through the article and it goes into no small amount of detail about the various concepts. But I note that I can go see the main article for both Fundamental Rights in India and Directive Principles in India which provides the same information. This is more than a quick overview, but less than a comprehensive treatment, so what's the point when each of these have good detailed articles? There seems to be a lot of duplication so it is confusing that readers would have both a quasi comprehensive treatment and a fully comprehensive treatment - although not uniformly. For instance, the criticism section pertaining to fundamental rights appears to be more comprehensive here than at the main article page (which seems counter-intuitive to me) and the information presented is slightly different. What's the rationale? Eusebeus 16:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • These kind of things happen when a general article goes for FAC. When the different articles were forked out, they would have been more comprehensive than this one. But as this article prepared for FAC, much more coverage was given to certain topics as compared to their supposed detailed article. One short term solution could be to at least copy the additional content added in the article to the detailed articles, but in the end, it would just be a one time exercise, as hardly anyone would update the two articles simultaneously. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't that beg the question of where in-depth content rightfully should lie? If we are going to have seprate articles on these, then those are the right places for more engaged and detailed discussion. This article instead should seek to provide a synthetic overview that offers basic points and lets readers drill down for further information. Eusebeus 23:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Witchfinder General (film)

Self-nomination. I wrote the vast majority of the article, and greatly expanded it from the merest stub. Of course, I think the article is interesting and comprehensive, fully referenced and well-illustrated with fair use images/explanations. The article is currently a Good Article and has gone through a Peer Review which, sadly, provided extremely skimpy results. Please provide any advice as to how to improve the article, or support it as a Featured Article if you think its great as is. Be honest (or brutal) if you think any major changes are required. Thanks!Hal Raglan 02:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Although I have suggested some expansion possibilities, as it stands, the article is well-written, sourced and interesting.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. In partial response to your suggestions, I have expanded the "Production" section somewhat to include details on the writing of the screenplay, although I have not broken it down into subsections. Also, thanks for catching the incorrect use of "breath" instead of "breadth". Good eye!--Hal Raglan 04:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support This seems to be a comprehensive, well-written article. Another great article by Hal Raglan! Dmoon1 17:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Dmoon1 and Fuhghettaboutit. --Myles Long 17:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I can't think of anything to improve. Critical reaction in particular is used effectively and extensively to make several points, so you did an especially good job there. One small note: I noticed that you use several references more than once, but only on some of these do the footnotes link to the same entry. Would you mind fixing these until the format is consistent? Great article.--Dark Kubrick 02:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'll take a look at the references and see if I can figure out what the problem might be.Hal Raglan 14:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • References fixed!--Hal Raglan 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per Dark Kubrick Trashking 21:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The artile should definately have a cast section and a section telling what awards and how well its box office revenue (not just "it was a box office success"...). There is definately a lot of things that can be done to further expand the article. Cbrown1023 03:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Response Thanks for deciding to voice your opinion. Let me address your concerns one by one:
    • 1) "The artile should definately have a cast section" - You brought this up on the article's talk page, and I already responded. Since I can only assume you did not read my reply, I will repeat myself here. For the record, I feel this is strictly a personal preference on your part, and therefore is not a reason to oppose this article becoming a Featured Article. Please read any of the following film FAs: The first three Halloween titles, Jaws, Night of the Living Dead, Summer of '42, Gremlins, November, and my own Tenebrae. Note that none of them have a cast section. IMDB.com can be easily referenced for cast/full production crew details; links to that site are generally provided in just about every wikipedia film entry I've seen. Since that info can be accessed via IMDB, I personally feel that cast sections simply fill up space with a listing of names, space that can and should be devoted to concise but informative details regarding the production history, critical reaction, and legacy/influence of a particular film. However, if others agree with you and insist that a cast section be inserted into the article, I will do so.
      • After looking at a few other film FAs, including Blade Runner, V for Vendetta, and Casablanca, as well as the Star Wars films, I noticed that they all have cast sections. Although I still think they are a waste of space, other people don't seem to agree, so I've inserted a cast section into the article.--Hal Raglan 16:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    • 2) "A section telling what awards the film won" - Er, well, the film won no awards. Therefore, this is an irrelevant criticism, and, again, no reason to oppose the article becoming a Featured Article.
    • 3) "A section detailing how well its box office revenue [sic]" - At the risk of appearing rude...did you actually read the Witchfinder General article? While the introduction itself does state the film was a box office success without elaboration, if you continue to read further into the article, in the "Response" section you'll note a sourced reference to the film having grossed "$1.5 million" in the U.S. And the "Influence" section has two sourced references describing that the film was a financial success. Please keep in mind that the film was a lowbudget drive-in release from nearly 40 years ago, from a midrange, now defunct distributor, and so online references with precise detailed theatre revenue figures are not available, and probably never were. I'm not sure how many people would agree with you that such detailed info is required. I think three separate, reliable sources, indicating that the film was a modest financial success, are more than sufficient.
    • 4) "There is definately a lot of things that can be done to further expand the article" - I always try to respond to helpful suggestions on how to improve an article. But this last comment is so vague, and therefore unactionable, that I'm afraid I can't possibly respond at all. Please take a look at any of the other FA nominations on this page, and note the many fully detailed comments provided by other editors. If you can let me know of any further concerns you may have that would actually improve the article, please do let me know. Thanks!--Hal Raglan 04:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support and a cast section isn't really needed in the article as it's more or less repeated info and would make the article more listy which is discouraged, it would be nice to find out the box office revenue though. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks! You are now the second person to ask for more detailed box office info regarding this film. As my response to Cbrown1023 above notes, precise box office details regarding the success of this low budget American International Pictures horror film are not as easily accessible as the figures for, say, The Godfather or Star Wars. However, I did find two sources, both offering two completely different box office dollar amounts for the movie. The reference included in the article mentions a "$1.5 million" final tally as the U.S. box office gross; this is sourced to Steve Biodrowski's extremely well researched Cinefantastique magazine "Making Of" article devoted to the film. The other source for box office info I found was Benjamin Halligan's Michael Reeves book, which claimed the film made "$10 million" in the U.S. This seems to be a hugely inflated figure; if true, that would have made it the 11th most popular film of 1968 (according to the Variety figures of top box office hits for that year, available in Michael Gebert's informative book, The Encyclopedia of Movie Awards), well ahead of The Green Berets and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Of the two, I decided to go with the more realistic-seeming box office figure. But I will add a brief parenthetical reference to Halligan's claim in the article.--Hal Raglan 05:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Hal: is it possible, given the startling difference in the sales estimates, that the ten million figure includes video sales or the like over time?--Fuhghettaboutit 21:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
      • No, Halligan claims the film made $10 million in the U.S. during its "first run". The last two films in the Variety list of top 12 earners for 1968 are The Green Berets ($8.7 million) and 2001: A Space Odyssey ($8.5 million). Gelbert's book indicates that AIP's biggest hit of the year was Wild in the Streets, which made $4 million. I believe it was the Cinefantastique article that described Witchfinder's financial success as "par for the course for one of these things", implying that it was a run of the mill modest hit, nothing spectacular. For it to have made $10 million in 1968 would have made it one of the top earning movies of the year, and that doesn't seem possible. Until I can find something more definitive, I'll keep the article as is with both figures referenced.--Hal Raglan 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] City of Manchester Stadium

Self-nom. Article about a sports venue in Manchester that I have been working on for a while, and I think it is now ready for FAC. Has had a peer review, but did not garner much response. Oldelpaso 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

*Minor Oppose. See WP:GTL

I don't like the three short sections...Critical reaction, Transport and Attendance statistics. Perhaps Attendance statistics could go in the info box. Critical reaction could be merged into Structure and facilities. Transport, I can put up with, however could be merged into History? Todd661 06:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've turned the attendances into a floating wikitable, and I've merged the information in Critical reaction elsewhere. Oldelpaso 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Support. Worthy of FA status. Todd661 23:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support As stadium articles go, this one is pretty good, and worthy of recognition. Kingfisherswift 15:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support It's nice to see articles cite their sources and it has good pictures Kingjamie 18:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (For now) The photograph in the infobox is pretty poor - the stadium is in such contrast from the bright sky, it can't really be seen - Can we replace it with something better as it's the first image we see when reading the article? --Mcginnly | Natter 10:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Oldelpaso 18:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, an image is not even a prerequisite for FA status, so a poor image is not enough to oppose the nomination. Well, problem is already solved, but I'd like to point it out anyway. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, one of the best stadium articles out there. – Elisson • Talk 19:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photon

Hi, the editors at Photon believe that it is ready to be a Featured Article. It has had fruitful scientific and non-scientific peer reviews, and seems to be stable and complete. Willow 17:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think this is a good article. I have one comment. This article fails to mention photon-photon interactions in vacuum. This is a technical subject and cannot be treated in detail in this article, however it should be mentioned that due to QED effects photons do interact with themselves (and the electromagnetic field). One can refer to the wiki pages on QED, the Euler Heisenberg Lagrangian etc. etc. I do think this is important, because a lay person reading this article will get the idea that because photons have zero charge, they don't interact with the EM field. Count Iblis 18:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Hi, Count, that's a good suggestion; I hope you like how the article has been amended. I had been nervous about including photon-photon interactions before, since it really is in the Himalayas of theoretical physics and the article is already a "tad technical". However, it fits in neatly with other types of virtual particles, which had not been mentioned earlier. Thanks muchly for improving the article! :) Willow 09:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Willow, yes I like amendment! Needless to say, I support this article becoming a featured article! Count Iblis 19:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support: it's good to see high-quality, comprehensive science articles like this. --ScienceApologist 14:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Support wonderful work. Rama's arrow 19:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support well written and very thorough; great addition to Wikipedia's coverage of technical subjects. You've done a great job on this. My only very minor nitpick is that Image:Photon_waves.png is "pretty" but doesn't really illustrate much, other than "here are waves with different periodicities". Opabinia regalis 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. I appreciate this contribution to the 'cyclopedia. –Outriggr § 09:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Nice article. However, as technological applications are cited in the lead, there should be a section devoted to it. CG 16:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Hi, CG, thanks for catching that! I've added a brief section near the end to cover the applications mentioned in the lead. Please let me know if it should be improved somehow. Willow 02:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• I just have a few comments:

Lead

The prose is a little awkward in places. Things like the aside about light here meaning all EM radiation breaks the flow by raising unaswered questions for the reader about what else it could mean. A simplier replacement like maybe light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation, although I always prefer to read "light" as meaning all EM radiation, would be an improvement I think.

Response The wording is finicky, because the word "light" is used to refer to "all forms of EM radiation" throughout the text, for both beauty and brevity. Unfortunately, some people understand "light" only as "visible light", so we have clarify the definition for them early on. How do you like the present wording?

Much better than my suggestion!

My personal preference is to minimize the use of parentheses in favor of commas.

Response Me, too, although you'd never know it. ;) Fixed excess paren's throughout the article.

Nomenclature

Why do we use γ for photons? Carry over from gamma rays?

Response Umm, not sure. It's probably nuclear gamma rays, as you suggest, but I don't know who used it first. I'll try to track it down.

Yes, it's because of gamma rays.--24.52.254.62 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Great! Could you give us a reference to a book or a journal article that says so? Ideally, it would be the first article to make the definition, or the paper of a scientific nomenclature committee. Thanks! :) Willow 04:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked around a bit for one before asking, but it's one of those tricky set of keywords that grabs all sorts of other junk. If there's no source, it's not a big deal. Just a question that occurred to me while reading. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wave-particle duality

Where are the see belows at the ends of the first second, and final paragraph supposed to be directing me?

Response Added specific intra-article links; are these allowed? Alternatively, I could just delete them, although it is a nice way of connecting different parts of the article and useful for readers who would like an immediate link for more information.

So far as I know, there's no problem with intra-article links.

Second quantization

I agree with Opabinia regalis that Image:Photon_waves.png doesn't add anything, and could confuse a lay reader (e.g., as to color-wavelength correspondences).

Response Agreed, but this is delicate. I'll try to make an improved image that satisfies everyone.

OK, a new image has been uploaded; although it might benefit from fuller explanation, it's at least as clear as the previous image and pretty accurate on the correspondence between wavelength and color (450, 550 and 750 nm for blue, green and red).

Although not as pretty, this is much clearer and informative. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Bose–Einstein model of a photon gas

The last sentence is out of place, introducing helicity without further explanation.

Response That sentence is now gone, its Helicity definition moved up earlier to the "Physics" section.

Fits much better now. The extra context of what the two values correspond to makes it more obvious that there wasn't simply a mistake where zero got left out.

The photon as a gauge boson

This section is a little too free with i.e.s

Response <Blush> What can I say? I like Latin. ;) OK, they're gone, too.

My physics is rusty already. What's the reason for no 0 spin angular momentum along the direction of the momentum?

Response It's totally not obvious. Photons are the quanta of the Fourier modes of the electromagnetic four-potential A^μ, which are indexed by their angular frequency ω and wave vector . The Fourier transform of the Coulomb gauge, is , so there can be no component of the vector potential along the wave-vector of an EM mode. Hence, choosing this gauge kills all longitudinal modes and all longitudinal photons with them. And we have to choose a gauge so as not to overcount the possibilities in the Feynman summation.

Ah, I see now.

• Overall I was very happy with the article: it was very thorough, well referenced, with a good amount of material for non-scientists. — Laura Scudder ☎ 23:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Thank you so much for your thoughtful review, Laura! The article is definitely better for it. :D Willow 02:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well, all my small concerns have been addressed. My applause to all the editors who got this important article where it is. Support — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Laura, your praise is the best gift. Willow 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this article does a poor job of introducing the topic to people who don't have a lot of physics background. (I have a PhD in physics, and teach it for a living.) It gets to be heavy going immediately when you get to the section titled "Physical properties of the photon." The average person is not going to be able to make heads or tails of this. There are lots of easy, intelligible ways to introduce this topic to the general reader. You could, for example, start with the photoelectric effect, or with the Bohr model of the hydrogen atom. Another example of a section that's not going to be intelligible to the typical reader is the one on "Stimulated and spontaneous emission," with all the matrix notation. Also, I could be wrong, but I think the "Main article" links are being used incorrectly here; for instance, the Squeezed coherent state isn't the main article on wave–particle duality, it's an article on a related topic. A more minor nitpick is some of the notation. It's not necessary to use both f and nu for frequency, or to give two versions of the same equation, one using nu and one using omega; show some editorial judgment and just pick a notation and stick to it. Also, hf isn't a notation for a photon, it's a notation for the energy of a photon.--24.52.254.62 03:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Hello, 24.52.254.62, and welcome to Wikipedia. :) Let me address your minor concerns first, and then tackle the major ones.

• The link to Squeezed coherent state is indeed correct, as it is meant to clarify the uncertainty principle ΔnΔφ for photons as well as the uncertainty principle ΔxΔp for material particles. I have amended the section title here to clarify the section content better — thanks for the tip!

• "hf" is a symbol used for the photon by some chemists, albeit quite rarely; it's written over the reaction arrow in photochemical reactions, such as in free radical formation of chlorine. It's rare enough that I would've preferred not to include it, but we are striving to be encyclopedic and this symbol has its partisans among this article's editors.

• This "hf/hν" symbol thing is the only use of f for frequency in the article, and it's well-explained, so I think that usage is innocuous.

• Regarding the usage of both ν and ω, here's the rationale. We must have ν in the article, because of the ubiquitous E=hν equation and the corresponding photon symbol. It is indeed the dominant symbol, with ω appearing in only two sections ("Physical properties" and "Photons in matter"). However, it would be similarly hard to leave out the wave-vector , as you may see from all the formulae that employ it. However, the wave-vector is part of a four-vector that includes ω, just as E and form a four-vector. We would like to relate these four-vectors in this and other articles, so we likewise need ω. Besides, it's useful for defining the group velocity in a compact way. So we have included both frequency ν and angular frequency ω to serve an educational purpose, not because we're undecided or careless.

• I personally believe that the basic results of the "Stimulated emission" section will be intelligible to an interested reader. They'll need to know what "emit", "absorb", "rate" and "equilibrium" mean, as well as the concept of an energy transition. The editors and reviewers here and in the earlier peer review are not all physicists and still manage to understand that section.

• The photoelectric effect is mentioned pretty prominently in the text, as you recommend.

• I think the Bohr model approach to photons is ill-advised. (1) First and foremost, you cannot derive E=hν or any other photon properties from the Bohr model. Bohr himself rejected the reality of photons for over 12 years after he published his model, as is clear from the BKS model (1924,1925). (2) Even in its own day, the Bohr model was never considered to be a scientific theory, since it was founded on no physical principles, and did not succeed in fully accounting even for the spectrum of hydrogen, to say nothing of higher elements. It was instead appreciated as a thought-provoking model that stimulated further research. But we should definitely not present it as a valid physics model from which other results can be derived with confidence.

• I agree that the "Physical properties" section might be less daunting if it came later, and I had arranged it so myself. But there are strong educational reasons for presenting it early, as argued by several editors here. I've added a trial "skip this section" flag to warn readers that they might want to skip directly to the History. I'm not sure if I like it, though, and would appreciate it if the other reviewers would comment on this flag. I'm also open to re-arranging the order of that section, which was also recommended by Astrobayes in his scientific peer review.

Please write again if some of your concerns have not been addressed adequately. Willow 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, frankly, I don't think you've addressed my concerns at all. The article is not comprehensible to the general reader. The general reader, for instance, doesn't know a matrix from a hole in the ground, and therefore will have no idea of what's going on in the section on "Stimulated and spontaneous emission."--24.52.254.62 03:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: As I have already tried to correct, and as noted above by another reviewer, the following intro sentence is grammatically incoherent and contradictory:

It mediates electromagnetic interactions and is the fundamental constituent of all forms of electromagnetic radiation, that is, light.

Response I'm not sure why you call this sentence "grammatically incoherent". The "that is" is an English equivalent of "i.e."=id est, and part of a 12-step program for my Latin addiction. ;)

The average reader is not going to know, according to some esoteric definition (which is not sourced), that light = all forms of electromagnetic radiation. Moreover, according to the majority of views, e.g. Gribbin’s Encyclopedia of Particle Physics, Oxford’s Dictionary of Science, “light is usually regarded as the range of electromagnetic radiation which human eyes are sensitive to [380 nm – 750 nm]”. People are not going to assume that x-rays, for example, are a type of light, but rather a type of electromagnetic energy or radiation.

Response I'm surprised that you think that this identification of light with electromagnetic radiation requires a reference, given that Wikipedia's own article on light states

Light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength that is visible to the eye (visible light) or, in a technical or scientific context, electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength.

It does not make sense for Wikipedia to replace a familiar, one-syllable word like "light" with a less familiar, 10-syllable phrase like "electromagnetic radiation". However, I am open to improved re-wordings that clarify this identification without interrupting the flow of the article too much, as Laura points out above.

Also, the “reader warning” comment is unnecessary:

Some readers may wish to skip this section on first reading. The definitions and descriptions are clearly written, and necessary for a quantitative understanding of the photon. However, their interpretation may require some prior knowledge of physics.

Response I don't like this warning, either, but consider the criticism just above yours. If it is assumed that some readers cannot understand the "Physical properties" section (which I do not agree with), then we should either guide such readers to the next section that they will understand, or re-arrange the order of the sections, which has been suggested by some editors and deprecated by other editors, both for good reasons.

That is why we use key-work links. Next, the phrase “law of photon energy E = hν” sounds a bit pompous; I don’t necessarily think it is Wikipedia’s place to be defining new laws.

Response I eliminated the pompous phrasing; thanks!

Also, I would cut all the "See Below" notes; it's not like we're writing a book. Moreover, articles will change over time, and those "see below's" may not actually match up down the road.

Response A good point. However, as pointed out above, it's also handy for readers to have a link to further information readily available. We can perhaps hope that future editors will respect these intra-article links.

Lastly, the article seems to give the impression that everything is known about the photon and its relation to the electromagnetic field, as though it were a solid theory, said and done. This view contradicts with Feynman who was famous for talking about the “screwy behavior of the photon”; or, for example, how no one is able to give an accurate description of the whereabouts of a photon on its trajectory from source to screen in the double-slits experiment and how we are told by Nobel Prize-winning physicists, such as Martinus Veltman, to "Forget about it, it's daydreaming. What counts is what you see on the screen. Do not ask if the particle did follow some continuous path. We do not know about that. Forget about it." --Sadi Carnot 10:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response The photon is described by the Standard Model theory, which has been able to accurately predict experimental observations such as the magnetic moment of the electron to roughly 16 decimal places. There is no other scientific theory that can make testable predictions of comparable accuracy. We may discover new physics beyond the Standard Model (CP violation hints at this), but this is not certain at present. Unlike the electron and other material particles, the photon's properties can be derived entirely from its gauge symmetry. Therefore, the photon is arguably the best understood object in all of science.

Well then, why is it when light is shined on ultracold liquid helium, while it is subjected to a voltage, that the effect is to increase the current of negative charges, presumably electrons, in the fluid. From what I have read, this has been a long-standing "puzzle" since the 1960s.

Response2 This is not a mystery pertaining to photons per se, but rather to ultracold liquid helium. If you wish to discuss this further, please provide a reference to a recent scientific journal article, e.g., from Physical Review Letters.

Moreover, I don't see anything in the article on how, in the mid 1990s, scientists at Geneva induced a single atom to emit two photons and sent them down separate fiber-optic cables 6.2 miles in length and recorded how the two photons remained "entangled" thus acting like one particle. This is taken to mean that the photons that had once been in contact somehow remained "aware" of each other when far apart.

Response2 Entanglement pertains more to quantum mechanics than to photons per se, but such effects were treated at length in the "photon correlation experiments" and, less directly, in the "quantum cryptography" and "quantum computing" parts of the article.

Lastly, of course, no one really understands how photons interact in the double-slits experiment. My point is that there are still some photon-puzzles still to be solved, and I don't see this reflected in the article. --Sadi Carnot 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response2 Admittedly, quantum mechanics is strange, but it is internally consistent and it's the way the world works. We might try to derive it from a more fundamental and more intuitive principle, but so far, no one has succeeded in that. If we accept quantum mechanics (and its infinite-dimensional counterpart, quantum field theory) and gauge symmetry, the intrinsic properties of the photon are completely understood.

Response Feynman's "screwy" quote reflects the fact that quantum mechanics and quantum field theory are counter-intuitive to most people; it does not mean that physicists do not understand the photon.

Quote from Feynman: "I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics."

Response2 True; but given quantum mechanics, physicists understand photons probably better than anything else.

Response Finally, I am aware of your profound respect for Nobel laureate Martinus Veltman but, as I have said elsewhere, he did not contribute significantly to our understanding of the photon, but rather to the electroweak interaction. No doubt, he is a good expositor of basic physics, but so are countless other scientists such as, say, Feynman, whom we also do not quote, despite his contributions to quantum electrodynamics, a much closer topic to photons. I do not think that the Photon article will benefit significantly from quotes taken from MV's popular works.

The light = EM radiation is a contentious issue around here. Lots of optics people like me regularly use light to mean X-rays, or any EM radiation. Some other scientists like to use light as meaning only visible light. I rather like the current phrasing; it quickly and painlessly establishes that light will be used as shorthand for any EM radiation throughout the article. — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to guess that more than just "optics people" are going to read the article; and that the smart reader is not going to see the Latin "i.e." and think to themselves, oh yes this means "light will be used as shorthand for any EM radiation throughout the article." This may be common jargon to some, but certainly not to all. Unless someone wants to provide a source for this, then I think it would be best to be technically correct and wise not to push our own personal biases or shorthand notations on people. --Sadi Carnot 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about. There is no i.e. in that sentence. As for remaining "technically correct", there is no consensus on what that would be. "Technically correct" for my entire physics department was that any statement about "light" was a generic statement about EM radiation. I'm not interested in encumbering the reader with a multitude of lengthy "electromagnetic radiations" just to prop up some silly distinction that's arbitrarily based on human sight. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response2 As the Wikipedia article on light makes clear, this identification light=EM radiation is the mainstream in scientific writing and teaching, presumably because of its brevity. We are not inventing shorthand notations or pushing any biases — just improving the writing of the Photon article.

Lastly, I don't see a discussion of gamma-ray photon generations via proton-proton chain reactions in the sun and how this is the major driving force of evolution:

Response2 Nuclear transitions are indeed interesting, although we mention them several times already. Perhaps it might make a good example, though; what do other people think? I don't see how it pertains directly to evolution, though; that discussion might be "off-pathway" for an article on photons.

I don't see photosynthesis represented in the article:

Response2 Having illustrated molecular absorption in retinal at your suggestion, do we need another example?

I also don't see a reference to common facts such as 1,000 billion photons fall on a pinhead each second? These are just a few points to note. --Sadi Carnot 17:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Response2 Your example brings one particular pinhead to mind. However, since Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, we probably don't need to mention this common fact. Serenely yours, Willow 17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Overall Support, but a few minor points.

:Most theories up to the eighteenth century hypothesized that light was composed of particles.

Theories describe, not hypothesise.

:However, before Compton's famous experiment[15] in 1922,

As a non-physicist I've never head of it, tell us what it was.

:On the one hand, the photon displays wave phenomena..

The phrase "on the other hand" is lacking later on, seems to hang as a incomplete statement as a result. This section also needs a short and clear statement of what wave-particle duality is at the beginning (state the obvious).

:Overuse of wiki links, with the same link (such as quantum mechanics) linked several times in one paragraph. I removed a few of these, but some more need to go.

Overall, a very good article, reasonably clear even to an beginner. TimVickers 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

All my suggestions have been addressed. TimVickers 22:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Response Thank you very much for your review, Tim! Those are all excellent suggestions. I've changed the wording on "theories", described the Compton experiment more fully (it was also mentioned in the previous section), and took your hint about a better topic sentence for "Wave-particle duality". I felt a pang when removing all those extra wiki-links, but the article's better for it as well. ;)

Thanks also for the your deft editing and formatting of Photon itself — it's easy to see how you produce so many Featured articles. Thanks for the catalysis, Willow 17:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Willow's done an impressive job over the last month or so bringing this article up to the standard it's now at (for comparison, the article before she started editing it was [21]). There are small things that need to be fixed (e.g. the reference that I just requested), but nothing major that I can see. I just hope that Willow will continue editing the article throughout and after the deluge of random edits that will happen when this article hits the main page. Mike Peel 17:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

(glowing) Thanks, Mike! I'll try to stay true to Photon and nurture it whatever happens. Hopefully, it'll never make Main Page because of its obscure figures. ;) But what was the reference you asked for? I don't see it. :( Willow 18:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's in the "Historical development of the photon concept" section, "wave theories of light were proposed by René Descartes (1637), Robert Hooke (~1665), and Christian Huygens (1678); ^{[citation needed]}". Unless that's from Newton's Opticks? Mike Peel 20:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I added the references for those three theories. Enjoy! :) Willow 20:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Mike Peel 20:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support This article is very thorough and yet very accessible to a wide range of audiences. My primary comment echoes some of those above, that care be taken on the more technical issues where the physical properties of the photon are concerned, and my second comment would be to ensure that the layout of the article has been reviewed so that transitions between sections are smooth and the background and historical information preceeds the technical details. It's a great article! Cheers, Astrobayes 21:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Terrific article, thorough and well-written. Sturgeonman 23:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment This is unsightly in the article lead:
  • The modern concept of the photon was developed gradually (1905–1917) by Albert Einstein[1][2][3][4]
• The desired referencing can be accomplished by combining notes about all four sources inside one set of ref tags: for an example of how that was done very effectively in a recent and exemplary FA, see Daniel Boone. Sandy 17:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Those references are also used in other places, though, so merging them would mean that their content would have to be duplicated. Personally, I'd recommend that things stay as they are. Mike Peel 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• It can be done easily. Sandy 19:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment is there any reason the "particles" articles don't have a standard infobox? They all seem to have HTML tables which seems like bad practice to me. Also isn't there any photo that can be placed in the upper right hand corner? Photons are light so any cool light picture should work, maybe a cool laser picture. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 07:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Also as much as I hate to ding a good article based on related articles... I belive having "main article: light" for "Historical development of the photon concept" is incorrect and there should be a "History of the understanding of light" article which is referenced in each instead. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 07:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
• Photon now has a shiny new infobox template, Template:Infobox Particle. It will be spreading to the other particle pages shortly. Mike Peel 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

• Awsome, per my comment on your user page you can see I started on one as well. Lets wait to spread the box more until we have all of the parameters figured out. Everyone please join in at: Template_talk:Infobox Particle to help decide which other paramters need to be in the template. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 21:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theramenes

Self-nom, has had two peer reviews; particular thanks to Yannismarou. Theramenes is a fascinating figure, who managed to become centrally involved in every major political controversy at Athens between 411 BC and his death; his dramatic death scene is one of the most frequently retold episodes of ancient history. Needless to say, hardly anybody's heard of him these days. --Robth^Talk 04:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Quick comment: could you have the pronunciation of Theramenes added? Thanks, –Outriggr § 05:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I can try... None of the sources actually give the pronunciation, but every classicist I've heard use it says it "Thuh-ram (like the sheep)-en-eez; ancient Greek pronunciation, on the other hand, would probably have been something more like thuh-rom-en-ace. So that could be tricky, (and, if you couldn't tell, I don't know IPA.) --Robth^Talk 05:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • We are still not sure about the pronunciation of the ancient Greek names. I think that since the article includes his name written both in English and in Greek it is ok. Now, just theoritically, the pronunciation of his name must have been something like that: θeeræmenees. But I donot think we need that.--Yannismarou 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the article could use an infobox... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • We talked about that at the MILHIST peer review, and decided that since we don't have a picture of Theramenes, an infobox would just look weird. --Robth^Talk 14:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I should have noted: the two peer reviews are here and here.

--Robth^Talk 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • What, they didn't have cameras by then? What a bunch of savages... :)) Anyway, full Support from me :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. I think this is one of the best encyclopedic article for Theramenes ever written.--Yannismarou 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Posted pretty long peer review on the talk page. Hope my comments have some merit. - Tutmosis 18:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestions; they were very useful, and I have made a number of clarifications in the article. My specific response is on the talk page. --Robth^Talk 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Due to the fact that you adressed my concerns on the talk page, there is nothing left for me to do but to give my Support for this very qualified for featured status article. Thanks again for adressing my concerns. - Tutmosis 20:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, all the issues raised in the peer review have been resolved; this is an excellent article. Kirill Lokshin 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, this is a pretty good article but there is no picture of Thermenes. Whats up with that? Mercenary2k 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  From the peer review discussion, it would appear that one simply doesn't exist. Kirill Lokshin 20:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  Maybe that could be added in some way under "Hisortical record". But it could be really hard to find some work that mentions the lack of existense of a dpeiction of him. :) Jeltz talk 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support OOps. my Bad. Didnt't read that section. It has my support then.Mercenary2k 20:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Great article, deserves FA. Kyriakos 21:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional support. Usually the opposite concern arises in FAC, but, could some the paragraphs be split up? I am speaking of the paragraph in section "Overthrow of the democracy", and the second paragraph in section "Conflict within the movement", and there are others. Also, the sentence "In the wake of the Athenian defeat in Sicily, as revolts began to break out among Athens' subject states in the Aegean Sea and the Peace of Nicias fell apart, with the Peloponnesian War resuming in full by 412 BC, a number of Athenian aristocrats, led by Peisander and with Theramenes prominent among their ranks, began to conspire to overthrow the city's democratic government. is rather long and hard to parse. Great job, –Outriggr § 21:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I split up both of those paragraphs and that sentence, which I think was the last survivor of the ferocious semicolon-beasts that prowled this article in its early drafts. --Robth^Talk 06:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)