Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/December 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 2011[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:31, 28 December 2011 [1].

What Lies Ahead[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP388 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has recently become a good article, and has gone through a peer review. Having addressed those issues brought in the peer review, I now believe that this article meets the criteria of a featured article. —DAP388 (talk) 20:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - Copyscape searches have revealed that 10% of the prose matches this website, [2] which claims to be by Robert Kirkman. Graham Colm (talk) 18:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done— DAP388 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, more details are needed. It is worrying that this was not spotted earlier (i.e. the GA and Peer Review). Has the prose been completely rewritten with no close paraphrasing? We still have "Shane confides to Lori that he is planning to leave the group on his own as soon as he can slip away," which is the same as here [3]. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't see that one, thank you for catching that. I have completely rewritten the plagiarized bits of the plot section. Those that weren't plagiarized received minors edits or were left alone. How much details should be added? Is it enough to fail the nomination?— DAP388 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until my concerns about plagiarism are resolved. Featured Article Candidates should be honed to perceived perfection before nominating. Clearly, this nomination was premature. Graham Colm (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose –

  • This one's purely on my instinct, but I don't have a good feeling about what Graham uncovered, having had a similar experience with the nominator at FLC. There may be problems there that go deeper than can be solved at FAC. I'm also finding some issues with prose and other things that concern me.
  • "'What Lies Ahead' broke the record for the most watched cable drama in basic cable history...". First "cable" is a pure redundancy and is best removed.
  • Plot: Still see the "Shane confides to Lori..." sentence that was questioned above. If plagarism is pointed out to an editor, I'd expect it to be fixed ASAP.
  • "prompting the survivors to seeking shelter under abandoned vehicles." "seeking" → "seek"?
  • "Dale hands a screwdriver via an opening in the truck's roof, to which Andrea stabs the walker." Don't know what this is meant to say. Is it supposed to be "with which Andrea stabs the walker"? That's still awkward in the flow of the sentence, by the way.
  • "Meanwhile, T-Dog fatally damages his arm and attracts walkers from his trail of blood." I'm calling factual error here. I watched this episode, and T-Dog wasn't killed, nor was his arm amputated as implied by "fatally".
  • "Daryl rescues him by stabbing a walker; with T-Dog, they hide under nearby dead bodies, whose scent will protect them." First, "they" implies that there was a group of people with T-Dog; I only remember Daryl. If that's the case, shouldn't it be "he hides"? Second, "protects them" is a little cleaner in terms of writing than "will protect them".
  • "urges her to seek refuge in a hole near the riverbed so he can retract the attention of the walkers." Retract attention? Word change is badly needed.
  • "A frantic and distraught Carol blames Grimes for losing Sophia". Who is Grimes? I see from the wikilink that it's Rick. Adding his last name early in this section would alleviate this kind of confusion.
  • "Afterwards, Rick, his son Carl, and Shane discover a whitetail deer in the woods." You already said Carl was Rick's son in the opening of the section. It doesn't need to be repeated here.
  • "A six-part internet series were broadcast on AMC...". "were" → "was". Can't have basic issues like this when an article is at FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I share the concerns of Graham Colm and Giants2008, and I would like to add that I am not seeing what File:WhatLiesAhead.jpg is adding to the article. There is no automatic entitlement to non-free screenshots in episode articles, and this one does not seem to be adding all that much; if you're looking for some decoration, how about File:The Walking Dead 2010 Intertitle.png? This is by no means a terrible article, and I hope you're able to resolve the issues and bring it back to FAC when ready. J Milburn (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - in addition to issues raised by above reviewers, I'm also seeing inconsistencies in citation formatting and sources of questionable reliability - for example this. I would recommend that this nomination be withdrawn to allow time for the concerns raised in this review to be addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 [4].

Stress (biology)[edit]

Nominator(s): Rebecca Silton (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... Rebecca Silton (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you care to elaborate on why this might meet the featured article criteria? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator is not a significant editor of the article, and I see no evidence of discussion with the main editors. The nomination looks premature; consider rapid closure. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree; article as it is now clearly fails Criteria 1c. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose: The nominator is NOT a major contributor to this article, nor have they consulted with major contributors. The nominator also appears to be unfamiliar with the criteria for FAC, as can be illustrated by the failure of multiple FA criteria in this article. Suggest immediate withdrawal. --MarcZimmer (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be kind and assume good faith in this case. It looks like it was related to the Wikipedia Ambassador program looking at Rsilton early edits and the article history, where BrianMSweis is a student. I kindly recommend taking this article to Peer review first, and once you take care of the concerns there, place it on good article candidate to be further reviewed. Secret account 05:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 11:07, 24 December 2011 [5].

Tiruchirappalli[edit]

Nominator(s): RaviMy Tea Kadai 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this was rated a good article in May 2011. Since then, this article has undergone an extensive copy-edit and cleanup. The article was nominated for a peer-review and suggestions have been implemented. I feel that the article is good enough for an FA now. RaviMy Tea Kadai 06:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The article is wide in terms of coverage, leaving the below IMO.

  • History
  1. Trichy was once planned to be the second capital of TamilNadu - references here [6]. There are voices now(refer Junior Vikatan) to the same now.
    Gyan Publishing House has the infamous reputation of publishing books which contain stuff copied from Wikipedia. See here. This raises doubts about its reliability-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There are quite a few more- [7]S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 05:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]
    There are no details in the article on what happened to the proposal. I am also not able to find any source regarding this on Google Books. As of now, I am adding the information to History of Tiruchirappalli article.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The etymology of 'Tiru Sina Puram' is by fury of Lord Siva towards Woraiyur - stalapuranam of Thayumnavar points to that(dont have online references)
    Sources are needed-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Trichy was associated with Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali - references here [8] and [9]
    Added the same-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. East bouleward and west bouleward are demarcations of the old fort that existed. Now only the partial portions remain - that is the main guard gate - partial references here [10]
    The source does not mention that. All that the book proves is that there exists a place called West Boulevard in Trichy.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Also mention of Teppakulam(which is also historic) is missing.
  • Geography and climate
  1. "The alluvial soil is conducible for agriculture and crops such as ragi" - isnt this generic? The staple crop is paddy, sugarcane followed by banana.
    The sources mention only ragi and cholam.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "The climate of Tiruchirappalli is favourable and healthy. " - relative term.
  3. " the temples to the north " - whcih ones? There are famed temples all around. Temples with large visitors like Vekkali Amman, Panchavaranswamy temple and nachiar koil are right in Woraiyur. North is too generic.
    Again based on what the sources say. The book says that the temples are located in the northern part of Tiruchi.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the famous temples are located only in the north. When you say Trichy, the first thing that comes into mind is Rockfort followed by Srirangam, Thiruvanaikaval and Samayapuram to some extent. Many People don't know about Nachiyar Kovil, Panchavarnaswami Temple. Even Vekkali Amman Temple is only known in places loacted in and around Trichy. These temples aren't as famous as Rockfort and Srirangam. Also, Uraiyur isn't the western extreme of the city. —Commander (Ping me) 04:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. is there a way to get the latest map - given that directional references are made?
    I've explained in the peer review why it is not possible.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lower anaicut is not in Trichy
    Removed —Commander (Ping me) 05:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "The Jambukeswarar Temple at Thiruvanaikkaval and the Erumbeeswarar Temple, both date from the time of the Medieval Cholas" - sentence is fragmented.
  • Demographics
  1. Best to have religion graph in terms of population data as in Chennai
    Reliable religionwise population data for Tiruchi is not available. I am waiting for the publication of 2011 census results.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. St Joseph College Church, Tiruchirappalli - there is no such name. The one referred is Our Lady of Lourdes Church, Tiruchirapalli
    Our Lady of Lourdes Church is also known as St Joseph College Church. See [11]-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have posted in the page itself - there can nothing more reliable than the college website itself - [12]. The church is in the college campus - even in the reference, the original name is given. S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 05:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]
  • Art, society and Culture
  1. The festivals can be split into festival of land - like Adi perukku/Vaikunta ekadesi and generic festivals
  2. Thayumanaswami is one level below Uchipillayar - it takes some 60-70 steps more
  • Transport
  1. "the Chathram Bus Stand and the Central Bus Station,[47] both situated close to each other" - relative. They are 5 kms apart.
  2. "There are frequent trains to Chennai, Madurai, Chidambaram, Bangalore, Rameswaram, Mangalore, Tirupathi, Kolkata, Guwahati and Cochin." - ? Check this - [13] or [14].
  3. "Tiruchirappalli has rail connectivity with most important cities and towns in India" - generic again. There are no direct trains to even some of the southindian cities.
    Lack of direct connectivity doesn't mean the city lacks connectivity. —Commander (Ping me) 10:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You give a source which contains a long list of cities to which trains are available from trichy and the next point you make is that trichy lacks rail connectivity. Aren't these two contradictory?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 11:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education
  1. "There are also 35 engineering colleges in the city." Leaving 2, all of them are in the outskirts.
    Reworded according to the source. —Commander (Ping me) 10:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bishop heber school and st joseph school are the oldest >150 years. Mention can be added.
  • Economy
  1. "The economy of Tiruchirappalli is mainly industrial." - in what terms? Check census data - it is still agrarian.
    Which data are you talking about. Nearly three-fourths of the District's urban population lives in Trichy UA. —Commander (Ping me) 10:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 23:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]

Think most of the explanation given above rely fully upon some sources and miss local knowledge - like temples and crop(anyone knows that in cauvery delta staple crop is paddy) - [15] and [16]. Srirangam, Tiruvanaikoil and samayapuram are in the north of the city. Vayalur, Vekkali amman koil garner equal crowd too and there are lot of historic temples in north east and north west. Generic statements in most cases can be easily avoided - like transport - "well-connected" would do. "Well connected to all major cities in India" - if you take indirect connectivity, any city would be well connected. Please refer to the district page - UA takes lot of villages into account. The major industries like bhel, happ, trichy dist and their allied 70-80 industries may employ a max of 1 lakh; all others and service sector another 0.5 lakhs? Even if employed personnel is held at 25%, we are short. Check this - [17]. S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 00:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]
Unfortunately, we cannot do anything about that. Of course, you can create a blog and put all the stuff you know in it. Otherwise, if we are to rely on people on their word you might even come across someone who might say - "I've lived Tiruchi all my life and I know the city pretty well. It is one of the biggest cities in the world". As for the sources you've mentioned (connected with paddy cultivation), do they exclusively refer to Tiruchi or only the Cauvery Delta?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you have provided pertain to Tiruchi district which also includes Manapparai and Thuraiyur.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have been insisting on local knowledge just not to miss coverage, while i fully agree that locals are not all knowledgable, neither unreferenced contents can be posted. Give a look at this - Maris is quoted as Morris, Our lady of Lourdes as St Joseph college church, missing mention of Teppakulam & main guard gate,chatram bustand-central busstand are close to each other, paddy not the primary crop - local knowledge will see these blatant mistakes off and essentially we have to agree that the tourist references may be wrong or may have typos. Trichy is defintely a rice-bowl; two largest sources of water akandakaveri(this mention can also be added as the largest width of the river is only in trichy) and kollidam is here. The irrigation and agriculture pattern is provided in the above references. Do simple searches on Lalgudi or Manachanallur - [18] and [19]. Also on history of boulevard and MG gate - [20]. There are hundreds of references, just that we need the lead and expand on these - i did a cursory search and landed with so many. I am simply providing the lead here and have provided 10 relevant references. Also i have been always insisting on not getting things personal - you and I are here to make things better for this forum. Statements like "you can create blog" is highly incongrous and uncalled for. S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt[reply]
Well, I was not making any personal statements here. I only insist that you provide references. Else it is difficult to incorporate them into the article. We had, in fact, implemented a couple of your suggestions. It is unfortunate that you find it personal. Thanks for the links you've provided. We will try to add them.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The data you have provided was designed according to the 2001 census and it's been more than a decade now. Things have changed a lot. According to Census authorities an urban area is a one which has:
  • Atleast 75 percent of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits. In that case agriculture is not the major occupation for most of the people living in urban areas. We cannot make any rough estimates like what you did above even if they are true. We need reliable sources. Now coming to Indirect connectivity, What I meant was Trichy is connected to most of the major cities, which means Trichy need not be the source station. Most of the trains from the south pass through Trichy. —Commander (Ping me) 05:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:OVERLINK
    This script should come in handy. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 15:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing quite a few primary and tertiary sources, quite a few promotional/commercial sources, and quite a few very old sources, which combined makes me concerned about overall sourcing quality.
    Can you please list the primary and tertiary sources used? And why should we not use old sources? At least three of the "old" books used here are written by expert historians for whom there are Wikipedia articles. Atleast, you might find that the sourcing is better than good many FAs in Wikipedia.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My advice would be to try to minimize the number of old sources you are using. As such, try to research if updated information exists on historical info. Also, the sourcing depends on the context. Regarding something which continues to the present day and is verifiable now, it would be much better if new books be used instead. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 15:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already given a more-than-convincing reply at the peer review as to why "old" sources have been used in this article. There are no alternate reliable newly-published secondary sources on the subject. Besides, there are other FAs like Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) which utilize a lot of old books and primary sources.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 16:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting should be more consistent - some are missing publishers, ranges need dashes, print sources need page numbers, etc
  • Mixture of English variations - see WP:ENGVAR
  • Article needs a thorough copyediting for grammar, clarity and flow. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose inappropriate sourcing basis; poor quality of citations. For example: historical etymology cited against "Falling Grain genomics Inc". For example: a reliance on subcontinental history from the 1920s, without any modern sources on history consulted (outdated, and not a full historiographical sampling, per WP:HISTRS). In relation to the poor quality of citations, compare the quality on website references to the bibliographical section (where there is at least one missing space in a title that I can observe). Important article to promote to FA. Not promotable in this state. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Did B. L. Rice and C. Hayavadana Rao live after 1970? Never knew that.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 01:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your crude and trite sarcasm; this is not an effective way to fix the issues in this FAC before it is archived. You ignore 16 sources from the bibliography of Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760) that were published after 1970. 16:5 in in Mysore: modern scholarship predominates (and I'm being kind by not considering Rice's works to be issues of volumes in a single work). There is a preponderance of modern works, a preponderance of modern historiography, and a preponderance of works that allow the proper historical and historiographical contextualisation of claims from Rice and Rao. Moreover, the editor who brought Mysore to FAC had a mastery over the domain, as demonstrated by the comprehensiveness of the literature reviewed for history in Mysore. None of these features of a FA are present in the article present for review at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll try to fix them. :-) I just specified "Political history of Mysore and Coorg (1565–1760)" as an example of an article where old sources were used. And I wanted to convey that K. A. Nilakanta Sastri is as much reliable as B. L. Rice.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there have been a couple of "Oppose" votes on this article by people who reason that the article has "old" sources. I've persistently explained here my reason for adding "old" sources even providing a link to the discussion in the peer-review page where the issue was first brought up. But I observe that people continue to vote "Oppose" in this FAN on the basis of "old and outdated sources", thereby ignoring my reasoning completely. I am reproducing my statement on the peer-review page

* Hemingway 1907.- The Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article on "Tiruchirappalli" is actually based on this. * Yule, Sir Henry; Burnell, Arthur Coke (1903). - Used as primary source in the article. * Sastri, K. A. Nilakanta (2000) [1935] - Source has been used in Chola Dynasty, History of Tamil Nadu, Raja Raja Chola I, Rajendra Chola I, Thanjavur * Sathianathaier, R. (1924) - Source has been used in Madurai Nayak Dynasty, Thirumalai Nayak * Caldwell, Robert (1881) - Source has been used in Kayalpatnam, Tirunelveli, Muhammed Yusuf Khan, Puli Thevar, Mangalorean regionalism * R. Burn, J. S. Cotton, ed (1908) - Imperial Gazetteer of India (The book has an article) * Moore, Lewis (1878). * Aiyangar, S. Krishnaswami (1921) - Source has been used in Madurai Sultanate, Jalaluddin Ahsan Khan, History of Tamil Nadu * Subramanian, K. R. (1928). etc - Source has been used in Thanjavur Maratha kingdom, History of Thanjavur, Kumbakonam, First Anglo-Mysore War.

Most of the authors whose books you considered "obsolete" are legendary historians. Some of the books you've mentioned such as The Cholas by Nilakanta Sastri (which is used in two featured articles and a B-class article), Sathianathaier's History of the Madurai Nayaks and Subramanian's The Maratha Rajas of Tanjore (used in a GA) are the best available books on the respective subjects. They form a part of the academic curriculum taught in graduate and post-graduate courses. And then, most of these old sources are used only in the "History" and "Geography" sections (of course, in eighty years you won't be able to see Tiruchi being transplanted to San Francisco). The rest of the sections rely almost entirely on contemporary sources.

I welcome any judgement on the validity on my reasoning but if any person continues to vote "Oppose" giving the reason as "Old sources" despite the explanation I've provided, I may have to conclude that the vote is an expression of prejudice against me.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 14:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not good. I read through the comments with a view to maybe reviewing, but I don't like the last comment. Assume good faith Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, what did you not like. :( I'm sorry but I found ppl jumping to conclusion without listening to what I'm trying to say.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion that an oppose is an expression of prejudice against you is extremely distasteful. I can't speak for Fifelfoo, but I don't know you from Adam, and even if I did I don't !vote at FAC based on the nominator, but only on the merits of the article itself. In terms of your argument, let me try to explain where you're going wrong. You suggest that because these are "legendary historians" and part of a university curriculum they should be perfectly acceptable. Consider some examples: Galen, a legendary physician, suggested that human personality was based on "humours" in the body; Albert Einstein's work is extensively studied in university science programs, but recent scientific developments have disproved some of his theories. History as a field does not evolve as quickly as the sciences, but very old sources become outdated just the same. In addition, relying only on old sources fails to fulfill the requirement for comprehensiveness in sourcing. Furthermore, I would point out that that was not the only concern I have about this article. In sum, WP:AGF - not everyone who disagrees with you is out to get you. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your suggestions. I'm looking into them.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (mainly 1a): Apart from the sources questions there are problems with the prose, and other more general issues. I have only been through the lead and first two sections, and have identified the following:-

Lead
  • General point: the lead should summarise the whole article. I see several section headings that are not mentioned in the lead (climate, demographics, transport etc). The present short lead could easily be expanded to touch on these aspects, if only by the addition of a few short phrases.
  • Insert comma after "the Kaveri"
  • "forming the island" → "to form the island"
  • The words "at different times" should be inserted after "has been ruled", rather than being stuck ambiguously at the end of the sentence.
  • "...Tiruchirappalli. Tiruchirappalli..." should be avoided.
Etymology
  • "believed by some..." Some who? Historians? Be a little more explicit.
  • "to have been derived from..." → "to derive from"
  • "In an inscription of the sixteenth century..." What form does this inscription take, i.e. where is it inscribed? Also you need to be consistent re "sixteenth century" and, elsewhere, "13th".
  • I suggest in this sentence you place either a full stop or semicolon after "in Tamil", and delete the "and". You should also say who Henry Yule and Arthur Coke Burnell were - scholars, historians, or whatever is most appropriate.
History
  • Write "second", not "2nd" per MOS (see also "3rd", "6th" etc. Numbers are OK for values of 10, so "13th" is all right.))
  • "Sir William Larke, Director of the British Iron and Steel Federation, stated..." When and where did he state this?
  • Boxed quotations should not be inserted into the text in this way. There is no obvious reason for treating this quotation in this way; you should incorporate it into the general prose.
  • On the other hand, you might consider whether the quotation is worth keeping at all; perhaps a paraphrase would be better? The quotation's meaning is unclear (what is "wootz"? Why is Sir Henry using American spelling? Also, wikilinks should not be included within quotes).
  • "identified by some..."?
  • Is there a less disruptive method of deploying citations than the following: "It served as the capital of the Madurai Nayak kingdom from 1616[22][23] to 1634[24][25] and from 1665"[26][27] to 1736"?
    The shifting of the capita from Madurai to Trichy in 1616 is mentioned in a different page of the book and the restoration of Tiruchi as the capital is mentioned in a different page. How do I mention them?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but both of these attacks were repelled by the British". It would be useful to know, by means of a short explanatory sentence, when/how the British came on the scene.
  • "A third attempt by Tipu Sultan, son of Hyder Ali in 1793 ended in a stalemate". There should be commas after "attempt" and "1793". Also, perhaps "attempt" should be amplified.
  • "At the end of the Second Carnatic War, the kingdom was eventually restored..." The word "eventually" is redundant
  • "The district of Trichinopoly was constituted in 1801..." Constituted by whom?
  • "the second largest city in Madras Presidency..." You have not explaine dhow it became part of the Madras Presidency, or what the Madras Presidency was.
  • Comma missing after "grew further"
  • Give the year of India's independence.

The rest of the article requires an equally detailed prose check. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll look into them this weekend. Thanks a lot for your valuable suggestions.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 02:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the lead, all the other listed copyedit issues have been fixed.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 12:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [21].

Jonathan Agnew[edit]

Nominators: Dweller and The Rambling Man

Joint nom with TRM.

Well, we've been working with this article now for some time and present Aggers to the community for feedback. Images have been checked out and Casliber kindly did a copyedit. As ever, we're very happy to take on board constructive criticism - TRM even understands citation formatting. Dweller (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcluded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOppose: Sorry, the article is not ready. It has has no formal review before coming here; FAC is not the place to be identifying and sorting out basic prose problems. Nevertheless I have done so, for the lead and "Early years" section:-

Lead
  • The "Spiro" nickname is unexplained, here or elsewhere.
This was discussed on the article talk. While I can speculate as to its origins, no RS that I've seen explains it, probably because they consider it blindingly obvious. So for me to explain it would be OR. I could, therefore, remove it, but I could be opposed for lack of comprehensiveness. It's a catch 22 and this way is definitely the better one. --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And its existence is backed up by at least one reliable source, so I don't think I see a problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that you don't actually give this source. I'm not doubting he was called "Spiro"; my concern is that Spiro Agnew lost office nearly 40 years ago and dropped out of public view. I doubt whether any of your readers under 50 or so will have the slightest idea as to the origin of the nickname. It would be good if we could enlighten them, though if the information is lacking in the sources, I suppose we can't. Finally, are his nicknames so significant as to deserve mention in the very first paragraph of the lead?
Well, Aggers is very significant, that's why Aggers redirects to this article. Secondly, the lead has no citations, but the infobox has a "source" which references Spiro as his nickname. That should suffice. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was second and third-leading wicket-taker" Lose the first hyphen
Done, thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including achieving..." Never have two -ings together (especially after one earlier in the sentence)
Seems like consistency of participles, but as you prefer, I've amended. I think it's worse for the change though. --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some notable guidance that says you should "never have two -ings together"? I agree it's sub-optimal but is it in our MOS? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a personal view about avoiding the clunk of repeated -ings in high quality prose. Apart from that, it is still not clear from the wording whether the achievement of 100 wickets in a season refers to one or both of the seasons in question. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Think the "ings" has been solved and I've clarified what year the 100/season occurred. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 1988." I'd suggest "...one of the Cricketers of the Year by Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 1988" to reduce the repetition.
Good spot, thanks --Dweller (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of "notably" in first two lines of the third paragraph.
Ugh, it was worse than that. Thanks. Heftily reworked. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusing though it was, should the "leg-over" incident be given such prominence in the lead? How important is it in the context of Agnew's entire career?
Extremely. It's given him a prominence far beyond the normal cricket audience. For a cricket commentary to be named best of all time in the UK, beating the iconic moment of England winning the 1966 football World Cup speaks volumes. --Dweller (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Words fail me if this incident is considered "the greatest sporting commentary ever", but if that's the case, fair enough. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well it certainly tickles the funny bone. Besides "they think it's all over" or "your boys took one hell of a beating", not sure I can recall anything quite so significant in the world of broadcast, and certainly not in audio-only broadcast. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal to a wider audience is one (good) argument, but I think there is another reason this commentary incident is considered so significant by Test Match Special aficionados -- Aggers effectively picked up the baton from Brian Johnston ("Johnners"), who had been a cricket commentator for decades and was really at the centre of the team for a generation of listeners, especially following the retirement of John Arlott. He also represented traditions of British radio presentation dating back to the post-war era. The incident, with its puerile humour, had further resonance with traditions of British comedy, and the on-air chemistry of Agnew and Johnston established the former as the true standard bearer for TMS into the future. FrankP (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • "growing", "becoming", "carrying", "listening" - all in one sentence
I simply don't understand this criticism --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, it's a question of best style per FAC criterion 1a - it is not grammaticaally at fault, but it reads in heavy footfalls, and could be phrased more smoothly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have attempted to address this by use of semi-colon and rephrase. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoidable repetition: "...Test Match Special. Test Match Special..."
Thanks, nuked. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one that he believes to be a common one" → "one that he believes to be common"
Dealt with above. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first sentence of the second paragraph the terminal "too" is unnecessary
I disagree. Plenty of people love the radio coverage and never play the game. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary in the sentence as you have written it. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will disagree with Dweller here, plus not keen on the comma, so have removed. If Dweller wishes to send me an email-bomb, I'll take it. Hopefully resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No bombs needed. As always, happy to go with consensus. --Dweller (talk) 17:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the bowling action" - "the bowling action" sounds as if there is only one.
It's a fair point, but it's how the term is used in my experience. (IIRC, it's actually what Aggers says in the book!) Any suggestions? Maybe "including how to bowl" - it's less elegant though. --Dweller (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this to you. Other options might be "the basic action of bowling", or "the mechanics of bowling". I just feel that "the" bowling action should be avoided. I missed the Mary Duggan bit in my previous look-through; whose first cousin is she? She was 35 years older than Aggers.
Have tried to address the off spin issue by a reword. The Duggan bit has just been added (by neither me nor Dweller) so we'll need to look at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was added by User:Johnlp from a paper source to which I have no access. We can either ask him to chip in or remove it (seems relatively trivial to me, but assuming the reference is sound, I'm not sure what else to add here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cricketers' Who's Who tends to be written by the cricketers themselves, and "first cousin" is what it says in the 1991 edition. If you go back through The Times back issues, you find Agnew's grandmother (father's mother) was a Miss Mona Duggan. Suspect that makes Mary Duggan a first cousin once removed. You can get a reasonably complete genealogy of Agnew from Times birth, death and marriage notices if you want. Johnlp (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within a couple of years" is too casual, informal. The punctuation in this sentence also needs attention.
"a couple of years" is how Agnew describes it. I could change it, but am caught between making it OR-ingly too specific or using an alternative that's equally vague, which seems pointless. I could also make it a direct quote, but it seems silly. Suggestions welcome. --Dweller (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"couple of years" does not sound like an encyclopaedic expression, but this isn't a major point. Change it if you can think of something better.
Per the fact they're his own words, quote marks added, and (in my mind) nugatory comma removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For secondary school, Agnew attended Uppingham School,[3] and, from the age of 16, he also developed his skills as a right-arm fast bowler out of school hours at Alf Gover's cricket school in Surrey." Several issues here. First, the opening "For secondary school" is clumsy. Secondly, the word "also" is inappropriate. Thirdly, a comma is required after "fast bowler". You could consider splitting the sentence.
First point taken. The "also" is needed to help the reader understand that he attended both institutions simultaneously. I thought about splitting it, but it would make for two very choppy sentences. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "also" is not needed, since you specify where he developed his bowling skills. And the punctuation still needs attention. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quotation beginning "For an eighteen-year-old bowler..." has nothing to do with Agnew's memory of Holding's bowling in 1976 (when Agnew was 16, not 18).
Yes, that's tricky. It's to do with his school career generally, though. It needs to go after joining Gover's institution, which, in turn, needs to be after Uppingham. However, it goes before the bit that explains how he came into county cricket. As such, it's in the right place. Would it help if the quote were truncated to begin "I was unusually..."? --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Location is not the issue. The problem is that the quote is at odds with the statement introducing it: "That summer, he saw fast bowler Michael Holding take 14 wickets in the 1976 Oval Test match, a "devastating" performance of pace bowling, which made an impact on Agnew, sufficient that he recalled it more than 30 years later." This leads one to expect some such recall in the quote, and it's not there. I would alter the introductory wording to read "...a performance of pace bowling which made a lasting impact on Agnew. More than 30 years later he wrote of his schooldays bowling:-" I would leave the quote as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent stuff. I've implemented it, although not so sure about "schooldays bowling". I'm not even sure of the elegance of what I've replaced it with... I'll ponder on it a little. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not even glanced at the remainder of the prose, but I assume that it is in similar need of polishing. The article should in my view be withdrawn, pending review and in particular a top-to-bottom copyedit. I am quite a fan of cricket-related articles, and will generally give of my help when asked, but I can't support premature nominations such as this one. Brianboulton (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of 'formal review' would you like? It had a copyedit from a third party copyeditor. Happy to respond on any prose issues. I agree with most of the points raised above and will address. NB A lot of your concerns stem from the lead, which as usual was the last piece of the jigsaw and hasn't been as well thumbed. --Dweller (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of what I would like but what the article needs, to bring it up to FA standard. I don't think the copyedit was meticulous enough. If the article was at Peer review I would review it specifically against the Featured Article Criteria; this would take a couple of weeks, but it would be thorough. I can't do a peer review within the timescale of an FAC, and anyway, this isn't the right forum for that. Brianboulton (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've used PR in the past for our FAs, but found it was even more sparsely 'attended' than FAC. I know this forum isn't the right one for copyediting, which is why I requested a third party copyedit before coming here. --Dweller (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with a reasonably niche subject matter, PR is relatively useless. In any case, I think we've addressed most of your comments, and we'd surely appreciate further. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have addressed my points, and in response I have struck my oppose. However, I only examined a fraction of the text; the main issue to me is the unprepared state of the article. I can't give it the level of review it requires at this FAC, but should it be archived I'd be more than happy to give it full attention at PR. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for helping improve it considerably already. Your gesture and offer are also deeply appreciated. --Dweller (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There has been considerable further discussion on the article's talk page (effectively a peer review), as a result of which the article has been significantly amended. The disussions are ongoing as of now. Link here Brianboulton (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Far from the worst article I've seen at FAC, but I can see places that are quite rough, as Brian suggests. I won't go so far as to suggest a quick withdrawal, but another copy-edit would certainly be beneficial. Here are some examples of issues:

  • Minor, but Wisden Cricketers' Almanack should be italicized in the lead as a printed publication.
  • Early years: Reference 3 is used twice in the opening sentence of this section. As long as the DOB is covered in the cite, I see no reason why the doubling-up is necessary. One cite at the end of the sentence should cover all of it.
  • "as he wanted his son to develop into bowler like him." Would read better with "a" before "bowler", assuming they use that phrasing in cricket.
  • County cricketer: the hyphen after "Sri Lanka touring team" should be some form of dash per the MoS.
  • Test cricketer: "He had the perfect start, playing in the warm-up game against Cambridge University and achieving figures of 8–47 from 20.4 overs and found himself included in the first team for the County Championship matches that followed." There's a lot going on in this sentence, which is worsened by having only one comma break. Another would be useful before "and found himself included", or the County Championship part could be made into its own sentence. Either way would be better than the current structure.
  • "As if poor performance and a muscle injury that limited him to bowling a single over on the last day, were not enough". Not sure if this is an encylopedic enough form of phrasing this bit. Seems too informal and sports magazine profile-like to me.
  • "Cowdrey and Ellison had both struggled with the ball, both averaging more than 70." The two "both"s are a pretty clear redundancy. I'd get rid of the first one, as it seems the more expendable of the two.
  • You guys don't need to link Norman Cowans twice in a paragraph. Same goes for Neil Foster.
  • This is probably just my lack of cricket knowledge again, but what does "ring the changes" mean?
  • In this section and the next one, 8 of 9 sentences begin with Agnew. Some more variation would be nice, if possible. Also, every sentence in the personal life section starts with Agnew.
  • Broadcasting controversies: England and Wales Cricket Board doesn't need to be linked twice here.
  • The Lily Allen quote causes a situation I've never seen before at FAC. Agnew's Twitter handle (I think) is given, but that's the only description of who he is. I have no knowledge of whether the MoS has any advice on how to handle quotes with Twitter handles. What I would suggest is to make clear that this was Agnew's Twitter handle (or name, or whatever it's called).
  • "Leg over" incident: Again minor, but Match doesn't need capitalization in the first sentence.
  • Ref17 could use a space between the p. and number, for consistency with the other short cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Giants, thanks for that, done all bar "8 of 9 sentences begin with Agnew" and the Twitter thing. Will leave Dweller to think about those two unless I get back here before him! By the way, ring the changes is just "making changes"... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the Twitter thing, hopefully in a non-contentious manner. It actually makes it more comprehensible, never mind MOS, so it's a good change IMHO. I've de-Agnewed a bit already and will do some more. It's one of the things I try to keep a lid on while editing, but this must have slipped through somehow. Thanks for all the comments. --Dweller (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I've read the article through once and I think it is quite an impressive piece of work considering that there are not too many sources available on Agnew. I won't comment on prose at the moment as others are doing that. I've a few content related queries for the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the cricket section is a little light. I appreciate that this article probably deliberately avoids the whole "In the XXXX season he took XX wickets at an average of XXXX" and I think that approach is fine. But I don't think it comes across that he had a substantial and respected cricket career as a county cricketer. A 10+ year county career is covered in two sections totalling six paragraphs, while his brief international career gets an equal number of paragraphs in one section. I don't think an extensive run-down of his stats or a match-by-match account is required at all, but I think this aspect needs more.
Hi. Interesting. As a cricket fan, rather than a media fan, this is the part that most interested me, and I've been resisting temptation to make this much larger. However, the facts are as follows: Agnew's playing career really lasted c.11 years, while his media career has so far been 24 years. While he's notable by our standards for both careers, he has achieved far more public recognition for his broadcasting than his 'very good county pro, bit-part international' career. As such, I think we have the balance pretty much right. If we have omitted things, that's fine, and I notice you mention things below we should address, but I'll need to disagree with you on this one. I'm happy to go with it if others persuade me though. TRM, a view? Other WP:CRIC members? --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One example of this is the fact he took 100 wickets in 1987. It is given a bit of a throw-away comment, but this was a big deal and exceptionally rare for anyone at the time. Even more so for an England-qualified bowler and led to plenty of recall-Aggers speculation that came to nothing.
I think you're right that the 100 wickets feat could do with a little expansion - it's become an amazing achievement since the county programme was cut down. The speculation that came to nothing is less encyclopedic, IMHO. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as everyone loves Aggers, parts of the article are a little too much sweetness and light. Any controversies seem to be ignored a little. For example, I think the dirt-in-pocket affair is quite big, but it gets just a few words. Firstly, the general reader will have no idea what this means or what the context was. Secondly, I seem to recall that Agnew was quite vociferous at the time and demanded that Atherton resign. And I think it was the first time Agnew was seen as a journalist rather than a cuddly TMS figure. Cricinfo has a good article about the affair here which covers Agnew's role quite well. It would be interesting to know what Agnew and Atherton later said about it.
Good stuff - I'll look into this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't mention much about his role as chief cricket correspondent at the BBC. Apart from the Atherton incident, I seem to remember him being quite combative a few times in this role. Also, what about outside opinions of his effectiveness? Does anyone "review" him as a journalist, apart from the awards he won? For example, Wisden usually do a media review each year. Has this ever mentioned him?
We have him in combative mood a few times, but usually in his TMS role. Dunno about reviews, but I'll peruse some Wisdens tonight if I can. Dirt in pockets as mentioned above would be a good inclusion. The thing is, his role as BBC cricket correspondent does have a significant overlap with TMS, as the Test coverage is what usually catches the eye. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One incident I think worth mentioning is when he threw Phil DeFreitas' cricket bag over the dressing room balcony in 1987 after DeFreitas poured salt over his lunch. Although it was more to do with what DeFreitas was doing at the time, it shows a different side to Agnew and was quite a major incident at the time. This is mentioned in the 1988 Wisden (I can get hold of a copy if you need the reference), and I have a very vague memory of Agnew coming under some criticism for dressing room stuff at some stage (although I could have dreamed it).
I remember this happening, but never knew it was Aggers. I'll look into it. If you can scan the Wisden page/s and email me or upload somewhere (I don't have 1988) I'd be grateful. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not too much apart from Agnew's own views on why he was not selected by England. I think in this case, there is a real danger in relying only on his own writing. For example, the Cricketer of the Year citation mentions one reason being a perception that he was injury-prone (and admits that he was at first: this does not really come across in the article, but see below). Has anyone else said why he wasn't picked? Gower, for example. And Cricinfo has a few parts which effectively criticise the selectors for not choosing him, for example here and his profile page.
I'll look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think the article relies on Agnew's writings too much. For example, "when I slowed down a bit, learned how to swing the ball" comes in Agnew's words when it may be better coming from a neutral source. His Cricinfo profile says the same thing, more or less.
I think it says masses about his personality that he says this. Happy to look at each quote in turn. I already pruned a load of quotes, based on the talk page feedback from reviewers and the copyeditor. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many quotations for my taste, which I do not think add to the article. However, you may disagree and that is fine.
As above. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agnew's career did not initially live up to his early promise. In his first six seasons as a first-class cricketer, his biggest haul of wickets was 31 in 1980, hampered by a mixture of injuries, poor form and omission from the Leicestershire side." When I was looking to see what the article said about his injuries, I noticed this sentence was referenced to his seasonal bowling averages. This only supports the number of wickets he took, and does not really cover his promise, injuries or omission. I think another ref is needed in addition.
I'll look at this. --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for these being slightly random and disorganised comments! I plan to have another look in a day or two once the prose concerns have been discussed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise - excellent feedback, thank you --Dweller (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some excellent comments above. My time tonight is limited - I'll get stuck in tomorrow and, erm, ring the changes in the article. :-) --Dweller (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "leg over" incident is in the lead? I see that Brianboulton commented on this. According to Dweller, this is "extremely [important in the context of Agnew's career]"? "It's given him a prominence far beyond the normal cricket audience"? There is no justification for either of those statements. The fact that Radio 5 listeners voted it the "greatest sporting commentary ever" speaks volumes indeed: not about commentary, but about the nature of the voters. In my opinion, this statement should not be in the lead section (although it should be present later on in the article). Disclaimer: I enjoy listening to the cricket commentary on Radio 5 Live Sports Extra. Aggers and Blowers are excellent commentators. For those who suspect "sense of humour failure", I was actually listening when Aggers and Vaughan were discussing the difficulty with rubbers, and I found it amusing at the time. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In the absence of any further explanation from Dweller or The Rambling Man, I am opposing over this matter. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. I've not had the solid time this week to devote to FAC stuff. I'll take a look next week. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, real life has calmed down a little and I have some time for this. Can I just be clear - is your oppose entirely based on the leg-over being mentioned in the lead? --Dweller (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I have read some of the rest of the article, but not carefully enough to formally assess it against the FA standard. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a bold ask, but we'll work on understanding if there's a general "out-of-cricket" acceptance that this a notable enough broadcasting moment to feature in the lead (and, of course, go with consensus and remove if indeed that's the case), if you would be generous enough to look at some of the rest of the article, that would be very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A bold ask indeed. :-) Okay, I'll take a closer look at the article. However I think that it's only fair to warn you that I tend to be a harsh reviewer. ;-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harsh is good! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per this request by Dweller on my talk page, I am adding comments to the article's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you mention when the commentary box stuff up was fixed in SL? Aaroncrick TALK 08:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could do - just seems excessive detail. The part of the story that's relevant to Aggers is when he was commentating from the fort. --Dweller (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [22].

The Constant[edit]

Nominator(s): igordebraga ≠ 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... widely considered the best episode of Lost, the article was edited to also be along the best Lost articles on Wikipedia (after all, it has many examples to follow). Hope the FA manages to be as successful as Desmond's search on how to revert getting "unstuck in time". Thank you, namaste, and good luck. igordebraga ≠ 12:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The link to FAC on the article's talkpage has not been completed properly. Also, in the lead I read "whether it is possible to avoid paradox in time travel is debatable." This opinion needs attribution as well as citation, 1.e. whose opinion is it? I don't see any follow-up on this issue in the main article text, either. Brianboulton (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how citations are punctuated
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? this? this? this? this?
    • Television Without Pity is owned by NBC Universal (Bravo, more specifically). The third (which descends from TV Squad) is by AOL. The second one is backed by the Los Angeles Times. The BuddyTV and Airlock Alpha ones are reviews, done by the editorial staff and don't violate the WP:RS parts that state "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users".
  • Combine identical citations
    • Was there another except for the Airlock Alpha one?
  • Don't italicize publishers.
    • Done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • In Awards section: phrase "... this was the only submission that came through.." needs to be clarified: came through what? --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Lead: " ..The writers claim to have been careful not to create a temporal paradox when dealing with time travel" seems a bit out of place. Why single that one fact out for the lead? Also, the word "claim" could be replaced with a better word, claim implies that others may dispute its validity. --Noleander (talk) 19:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There are many problems with this article, not least of which is that it's almost incomprehensible to a non-fan. Here are a few examples:

Lead
  • "It was written by executive producer Carlton Cuse and co-creator/executive producer Damon Lindelof and directed by executive producer Jack Bender in late October 2007." So it was written and directed in late October 2007?
  • "In the episode, Desmond Hume (played by Henry Ian Cusick) and Sayid Jarrah (Naveen Andrews) are on their way to a freighter". Why are they on their way to a freighter?
  • "After going through turbulence, Desmond experiences unexpected side effects". As opposed to expected side effects?
  • "The writers took twice the normal time to develop the episode's script, with the biggest concern being on how not to create a temporal paradox when dealing with time travel." That's pretty ugly. For instance, what about "how to avoid" rather than "how not to create"?
  • I don't think the lead adequately summarises the article.
Plot
  • "Desmond, Sayid and Frank Lapidus (Jeff Fahey) experience turbulence flying from the island in a helicopter". What island?
  • "Desmond flashes back to 1996 where he is serving for the British Army's Royal Scots Regiment." 1996 isn't a place, therefore "where" is incorrect. Also, you need to establish right away, here and in the lead, what the date is of this helicopter trip, presumably 2004?
  • "Moments later, when his mind returns to the helicopter ...". His mind was never in the helicopter, so how could it return there?
  • "... Desmond continues to jump between 1996 and December 2004". What's the significance of the month for 2004, but not for 1996?
  • "Minkowski explains that someone sabotaged the radio room a couple of days ago ...". Presumably that should be "a couple of days earlier"?
  • "Sayid uses the satellite phone to contact Jack Shephard (Matthew Fox) on the beach". What beach?
  • "Desmond responds that he believes that he is in 1996 and is serving for the Royal Scots". Should be "serving with".
  • "Daniel Faraday (Jeremy Davies), a physicist from the freighter ...". Is Faraday on the freighter? If so, why is he being described as "from" the freighter? If he isn't, then where is Desmond at this point?
  • "Faraday understands and tells Desmond that he needs to take a train to the physics department of The Queen's College, Oxford University in England to find Daniel the next time that he flashes back to 1996". The next time that who flashes back? Faraday or Desmond? What's the significance of the train? Why not take a bus, or a taxi?
  • "... he tells Desmond that he must remember to tell Faraday, back in 1996, to set his electromagnetic device with the numbers 2.342 oscillating at 11 hertz". How can numbers oscillate?
  • "... he had just built the maze and had not yet taught Eloise how to navigate through it". As opposed to navigate across it or under it?
  • "Desmond finds her father Charles (Alan Dale) at an auction buying a journal owned by Tovard Hanso written by a crew member of the 19th century ship called the Black Rock. Widmore gives Desmond Penny's address." It's rather confusing to call the same person Charles in one sentence and then Widmore immediately afterwards.
  • "... they reconcile before the power cuts off". Power doesn't cut off, it is cut off.
Production
  • In the "Desmond in 1996 and 204" image, which is which?

Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [23].

Malaysia[edit]

Nominator(s): Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because having worked on it for a while, and participated in a couple of FARs of other country articles, I believe this article meets the FA criteria. It's been through a couple of PRs, the comments of which were very helpful and have been taken on board. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of initial comments about the Governance section:
  • I really don't think this Huffington Post opinion piece is a reliable source for "Although the judiciary is theoretically independent, supporters of the government hold many judicial positions." I'm sure there are reliable sources that can support similar statements, but not that source.
  • "Some state governments controlled by the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party, including that of Terengganu, have passed Islamic laws, but these have not gone into effect due to opposition from the federal government." This seems a long way out of date and inaccurate. Terengganu of course hasn't been ruled by PAS since 2004. The state of Kedah, which is currently ruled by PAS (since 2008), has not really passed Islamic laws at all. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any more reliable sources with the same sort of message, but I have found a report by the International Commission of Jurists about how judges were promoted in after certain decisions on the Anwar sodomy trials, and discusses the lack of transparency in judge appointment. Alternatively, or in addition to this, there's a couple of Australian academic sources [24][25] which discuss the judiciary and how it has become subordinate to the executive, which could be used to show a similar point. Would these be better? Preferences?
  • If the report is a primary source, you should be sure you're using it correctly, or citing a secondary review of the primary source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I understand it, the report would be a secondary source, not only not being from the government or judiciary, but from an international NGO. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reworded it to be shorter and more obviously refer to the past. It's probably actually not that notable now, as UMNO has become more Islamic itself in many eyes, and so I'd be fine removing it. Not much would be taken from the article. Slightly tangentially, the ISA is being repealed, which may mean the governance section will have to be updated in other places soon anyway. Election next year, sigh. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the second item is worth keeping. You could switch out Terengganu for Kelantan, which it'd still be relevant to. Lots of laws passed, everything in place—signs for separate lines in the supermarket, etc—but they're not enforced. Nightw 13:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've replaced the Huffington post with the International Commission of Jurists report (which frankly does say the same message, only better). Hopefully that addresses Mkativerata's concerns. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't use bare URLs. All web sources need title, publisher and access date at minimum
  • Newspapers and magazines should be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source for what you're sourcing to it?
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • FN 23: volume?
  • FN 27; what kind of source is this?
  • Watch for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations

Stopping. Citations and referencing need a lot of cleanup here. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is the Sumatra source really that bad for a source that simply notes a kingdom's existence? I wouldn't think that was particularly contentious at all. I can try to change it anyway.
  • In regard to Author listings, while writing I did my best to place most in the |last |first format in the template, but ran into the issue of Chinese names. Often these have the last name first even in English, but without commas or anything. I suppose just changing them all to |author would be the best solution? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think as a rule of thumb, western names should be SURNAME, FIRSTNAME; Chinese and Muslim names should be as they read. The article does it all quite inconsistently (not that I would oppose over it): "John Pike" [85] vs "Kent, Jonathan" [86]; "Razak, Ahmad" [202] vs "Shazwan Mustafa Kamal" [206]. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sound good, I'll implement that unless Nikkimaria says otherwise. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but I left the Indian names as author as well. Someone more familiar with any author styles feel free to correct me. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Writing country articles is seriously hard work I think, so well done for tackling this one. I think it still needs a bit of work, though I'm afraid. A few examples from the early sections:

  • "The country is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural, factors that influence its culture ...". Isn't it self-evident that Malaysia's multiculturalism would influence its culture?
  • "Malaysia contains the southernmost point of continental Eurasia, Tanjung Piai, and is located near the equator and has a tropical climate." Bit of a run-on there
  • "The name "Malaysia" was adopted in 1963 when the existing states of the Federation of Malaya, plus Singapore, North Borneo and Sarawak formed a new federation, with "si" being added to Malaya in honour of the three joining states. Prior to that, the name itself had been used to refer to the whole Malay Archipelago. Politicians in the Philippines once contemplated naming their state "Malaysia", but in 1963 Malaysia adopted the name first." Some obvious repetition there.
  • "At the time of the 1963 federation, other names were considered". I think we've got the point by now that the federation was formed in 1963.
  • "Evidence of human habitation in Malaysia dates back 40,000 years, with the first inhabitants thought to be Negritos". "With" hardly ever works as a linking word, and certainly doesn't here.
  • "This resulted in strong Indian and Chinese influence on the local cultures". It's a good idea not to start a sentence with "this", as it engenders some ambiguity as to what it's referring to. In this case, is it the arrival of the Chinese and Indian traders, their establishment of ports and towns, or both?
  • "Between the 7th and the 13th century ...". Should be "7th and 13th centuries".
  • "Parameswara became a Muslim, and due to this the conversion of Malays to Islam accelerated in the 15th century." We haven't been told it had begun, so to read that it had accelerated comes as a bit of a "Huh?"

Malleus Fatuorum 14:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those issues fixed, and some other editing done as well. Unfortunately, while I am often able to point out others prose problems, I am regularly blind to my own mistakes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with a few very minor comments:
    • The first paragraph of the Culture section needs some rewording; "there" is used twice in the same sentence; some words are repeated too often throughout the entire section, most notably "culture" or "cultural". The section is a bit of a stuttering read, but the article is very good and interesting as a whole. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments (this may take several stages) Nice to see a big topic here anyway. The article is fully protected, or I would do some of these myself.
  • "It consists of thirteen states and three federal territories and has a total landmass of 329,847 square kilometres (127,350 sq mi) separated by the South China Sea into two regions, Peninsular Malaysia and Malaysian Borneo." - adding the split of land area, and at the end of the para population, between the two regions would be useful. That the areas are roughly equal, but the population heavily concentrated in the peninsula (80%+ I think), is a crucial fact about the country.
  • "Evidence of human habitation in Malaysia dates back 40,000 years" - I think you mean "modern human", as Malaysia is quite a hotspot for earlier human species, is it not, which should really be added. Better ref needed frankly.
  • "The first inhabitants are thought to be Negritos." - I can only read the first page of the JSTOR ref, but this seems to say the Negrito groups are only one of three types inhabiting the peninsula, and note that the article only covers the peninsula.
  • My understanding is that until about the 19th century, the crucial point about the various advanced cultures (Malay etc) in the peninsula, & also Borneo, was that they were very largely settled around the coast, & most of the interior remained largely unaffected by them. This should be said.
  • "In 1786 the British Empire set foot in Malaya, when the Sultan of Kedah leased Penang to the British East India Company." - oddly phrased "set foot"; "established a foothold/presence" maybe.
  • "The British obtained Singapore in 1819," - add "then barely more than a fishing village" or something.
  • British-sponsored Chinese and Indian immigration really needs mentioning here.
  • "During this time, rebels under the leadership of the Malayan Communist Party launched guerrilla operations designed to force the British out of Malaya." - "largely Chinese" or similar needs adding.
  • They've just changed the king this week haven't they? Yes, Abdul Halim of Kedah again, since December 13th.
  • "The prime minister must be a member of the house of representatives who, in the opinion of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, commands a majority in parliament." - Who needs adding. "The incumbent, Najib Razak, appointed in 2009, and is the sixth prime minister." - remove "and", or add "was", or something.
  • "Syariah Courts" - add explanatory link to Shariah law, the spelling most Anglophones are used to?
  • "...were implemented to advance the standing of the bumiputra, who are considered the original inhabitants of Malaysia, over non-bumiputra such as Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians.[58] These policies provide preferential treatment to Malays over non-Malays in employment, education, scholarships, business, and access to cheaper housing and assisted savings...." - an important point, & the relevant info is here, but rather jumbled up. Best to define bumiputra as soon as the word is mentioned.
  • "Debate exists over whether the country should be secular or Islamic.[60] The Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party has passed Islamic legislation in state parliaments, but these have been blocked by the federal government" - phrasing. "There is ongoing debate over whether the laws of Malaysia should reflect secular or Islamic principles." maybe? Is "Islamic legislation" clear enough? Probably not.
  • "Malaysia's foreign policy is officially based on the principle of neutrality and maintaining peaceful relations with all countries, regardless of their political system.[62] The government attaches a high priority to the security and stability of Southeast Asia,[63] and seeks to further develop relations with other countries in the region." - a very bland official start to a rather bland section. They certainly weren't neutral in the Cold War; that & the increasing move though non-alignment to anti-Western rhetoric since 1969 deserves mention. Isn't their main security concern (wholly unofficially) an invasion from Indonesia?
  • "The military uses 1.9 per cent of the country's GDP, and hires 1.23 per cent of Malaysia's manpower.[77]" - "employs" better
  • "It is composed of a variety of types, although they are mainly dipterocarp forests." - linked to the genus Dipterocarpaceae. Slightly misleading - as the ref explains, dipterocarp forests are "dominated" by Dipterocarpaceae, but are not just forests of Dipterocarpaceae. Maybe "It is composed of a variety of types, with Dipterocarpaceae the dominant trees at most altitudes" or something.
  • The economy section is a bit thin - nothing on national debt for example. Nor on the stock exchange, and regulations re bumiputra ownership of quoted companies. Nor government ownership of companies and other assets.
  • "The population in concentrated on Peninsular Malaysia[145] where 20 million of approximately 28 million Malaysians live" - which agrees with the source, which is the US State Dept. But - see Demographics of Malaysia - the 2010 census had c. 22.6/28M in the peninsula. One wonders if Uncle Sam may know something, or has just made a 15% mistake! But we should use the local figure.
  • "Putrajaya is the seat of government..." It should be explained that this is a planned city begun in 1999, with a population of 30,000 according to our article.
  • "Approximately 61.3% of the population are practicing Islam. 19.8% Buddhism; 9..." punctuation.
  • "The jurisdiction of Shariah courts is limited only to Muslims in matters..." "only" is redundant.
  • "The Iban is the main tribal language in Sarawak" - use "Iban language".
  • "The more common dialects in the country are Cantonese, Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainanese, and Fuzhou." based on the CIA's list, but I would be amazed if Mandarin is actually the second most common Chinese dialect, as opposed to people speaking it (very badly mostly) for business purposes as a second dialect. A better reference needed really.
  • "Despite most of the festivals being identified with a particular ethnic or religious group, celebrations are participated by all Malaysians in a custom known as "open house".[186]" - grammar, and needs explaining what an "open house" is.
  • "Malaysia, along with Indonesia and China, has consistently held the Thomas Cup since 1948." - no, "been a consistent winner of" maybe - it can't be consistently held by 3 nations.
  • "The Malaysian Lawn Bowl's Federation was registered in 1997." - no apostrophe (normally anyway), & is this really all there is to say? Is the popular sport bowling (ten pin essentially, US style) or bowls (lawn, English style)?
  • "Besides Malay newspapers, there are large circulation of English, Chinese, and Tamil dailies in the country" - grammar, & I expect it depends on what you mean by "large".

I think these are all fixable, & the article seems very balanced, not shying away from controversial issues. What about extreme Islamism? Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General agreement with these, I also can't edit due to the protection. I can't access JSTOR anymore (I could back when I did most of the editing on this article), but I think the article mentioned Negritos coming first. In regards to it covering the peninsular, although obviously noone really knows, from what I have read it seems generally agreed that humans settled the peninsular before what is now Borneo.
Yes, the advanced cultures were maritime. Predictably so, as there is such an extensive coastline compared to land area. Not sure how to say this though, I could add the Srivijaya empire etc. were maritime empires I suppose.
By Islamic legislation I meant laws based on Islamic laws. Islamic principles is a good fix.
That foreign policy statement is based on the current status quo, which is what I built the section around. West-bashing was prominent under Mahathir, but I don't hear about it as much now, possibly due to the fact that even if it is still prominent it can't compare to Mahathirs comments. Indonesia has become less important recently, especially with the strengthening of ASEAN. Most issues have been about oil and the spratlys.
I doubt there is good statistics on the type of Chinese spoken. I can look through the recent census data and see what there is.
Appreciate the comments, will fix when I can. Which is when it's unprotected, although if an admin wants to implement grammar changes above they can feel free to! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Actually I think the Mandarin mention is probably ok, as although (I'd imagine) the mother tongue of very few Malaysian Chinese, it is the only Chinese language taught (where it is) in schools. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made most of the changes above. I couldn't find the 2010 census, or a 22.6 million figure on the main Demographics page. I also have difficulty with economy, not being very familiar with it, I wouldn't know what is important or what isn't, I mainly edited by feel and previous content there, no doubt causing the thinness you sense. How would I integrate that information into the section? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would see if you can get an admin to unprotect for a short while so you can make changes - the king needing updating may be a useful excuse! Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do just that. I don't know why such a prominent article was locked for so long in the first place. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Any idea what happened to the svg Coat of Arms Mkativerata? Chipmunkdavis (talk)
The deletion log says it got deleted under F8, "Media file available on Commons". But I can't find it on commons... --Mkativerata (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [27].

Live Show[edit]

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC) and User:ThinkBlue [reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it easily passed GA and taking a look at other FA television episode articles (e.g. Road to the Multiverse), I think that this is of comparable quality. ThinkBlue helped me write this, so I'm posting to his talk as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Preliminary comment: As 30 Rock is aired in HD, it would be better to take a screenshot from a HD stream and downscale it rather than taking a screenshot from a downscaled stream. It's not a major issue; it's rather general advice regarding image fidelity, as a) I know that NBC/Universal doesn't do Blu-Ray releases for its television properties, and b) I can't tell in this instance if you've used a SD or HD stream. Sceptre (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Generally speaking, ellipses should not be bracketed
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for magazines/newspapers
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:30_Rock_-_Live_Show.jpg: should mention this is the main infobox image, need to identify copyright holder
  • File:SNL_stage.jpg: it is unclear to me what the copyright status of a set would be wrt freedom of panorama laws in the US. Can you clarify?
  • File:11.4.10UprightCitizensBrigadeTheatreByLuigiNovi1.jpg, based on the description, would seem to require caption attribution. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially done Can CC-BY-SA demand an attribution on each article? WP:CAPTION says that "Generally, this is only included in the caption if the photographer is notable." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually not, but in this case it appears that the photographer has requested one. It also seems that he's an active Wikipedian, so you could ask. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am a little surprised at the lack of substantive comments during this FAC, but I'll do what I can to get some discussion going. This show does not air in England (unless it's on some remote pay-to-view channel) so I know nothing about it.

  • I don't understand the hatnote: For the television terminology, see live television. What am I being asked to do here?
  • I am curious to know if there is any particular reason why, from I guess 100+ episodes, you chose this particular one to push for featured status. Was it particularly well received, or does it have any particular characteristic that stands it apart from the others? This is not of course relevant to the article's possible FA status, but it would be interesting to know.
  • This should be a standalone article, not requiring any particular knowledge of the series to understand it. From this perspective, as a newcomer to the show I found the abbreviated plot synopsis in the lead difficult to understand. The summary needs to be preceded by a line or two of context, indicating the general nature of the series. For example, if this was an episode from Frasier I'd expect you to say something like: "Frasier records the lives and loves, trials and triumphs of Seattle radio psychiatrist Frasier Crane and his family and friends". That way I would get my bearings.
  • Another confusion: The main plot section begins: "Liz Lemon (Tina Fey)...", yet the infobox refers to "Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Liz Lemon in cut-away sequences". There is no doubt a simple explanation for this
  • Prose issues
    • Why "an homage"? The "h" is not silent
    • "In the final act of the show, Jack conspires with the cast and crew to give Liz a last-minute birthday surprise which he wants to appear like they planned all along and Carol safely lands his plane." Two wholly separate events should not joined in the same sentence by an "and". Also, grammar: "which he wants to appear like they planned all along". Perhaps "which he wants to appear as though it had been planned all along."
    • Likewise, the next sentence loses control of itself: "All they can muster on short notice is a polka band and a large cake with Fonzie on it—gifts that were intended to celebrate janitor Jadwiga's (Rachel Dratch) birthday, who proceeds to ruin the TGS goodnights and tear into the cake with her bare hands." This is two sentences, with a natural break after "birthday", followed by "She proceeds..."
    • A recurrent issue in the prose section is the insertion of the actor's name after a possessive, e.g. "Dr. Leo Spaceman's (Chris Parnell) new album...", "Drew Baird's (Jon Hamm) public service announcement..." etc. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but it reads very awkwardly (try reading it out loud). Is there any other way of imparting this information that does not fracture the sentence?
    • There are other mega-length sentences. I'm not going to list them all, but, for example: "The decision was made in part due to lagging ratings for all of NBC's Must-See TV line-up,[2] and the idea was originally conceived during the 2007–2008 Writers Guild of America strike, when the cast performed two live versions of the season two episode "Secrets and Lies" as a benefit[3] at the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre in New York City." Later in the section the sentence beginning "In addition, the two episodes..." is even longer. Work out ways of splitting these, and look out for others.
    • "The two separate recordings of the episode resulted in a live telecast to American viewers in both the East and West Coasts of the United States..." Why are we talking about "recordings"? I understood we had two live performances.
    • Insert "as" before "Aladdin"
    • Women don't "deliver" their children

I will check out the last couple of sections to see what else needs fixing, but perhaps you would respond to these points. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I'm glad that you're not familiar with the show--it will provide excellent perspective on the topic. I guess I'll go point-by-point:
  • Fixed?
  • Simply because I worked on it. It's a somewhat notable episode, for having been broadcast live, but it's not exactly ground-breaking. The co-nom for this has brought several 30 Rock-related articles to GA status solo, but we collaborated for this one.
  • Better?
  • Is this intelligible now? The joke is that the show is shot live, but there are multiple sets, so when the camera cuts away, one actress is portraying the character in one locale and a different one is portraying her in the other. Is this communicated now?
  • Prose issues
    • This may be an ENGVAR issue, but I've only ever heard "homage" pronounced "oh-mahj."
    • Done
    • Done
    • Done
    • Done-ish. As I pointed out in the GA process, prose is my biggest weakness. I'll keep on going through it to work on the awkward phraseology.
    • Good point. Done.
    • Done.
    • Obviously. Done.
I'd like to think this is a good start and that this article can be easily promoted, even if it is not up to FA status at the moment. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:38, 21 December 2011 [28].

Giraffe[edit]

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now ready. Since it gained GA status and it's last FA nomination, it has been expanded, peer reviewed and copyedited. It now has a fairly complete overview of the animal. LittleJerry (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ranges should use endashes
Where? LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, someone else fixed it. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 1: which volume is being cited here?
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but I've restored it in corrected form. {{MSW3 Artiodactyla}} is the standard way to reference it, and implies the volume. I've corrected the page number. Grubb published in 1971, so hardly supplants MSW3 as a reference for current views on subspecies. --Stfg (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how page ranges are notated
Please be specific. They look fine to me. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with hopefully better sources. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 10: need more info. What kind of source is this?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher locations for books
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated citations
Will work on that. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johns Hopkins University Press or The Johns Hopkins University Press? Check for consistency in naming. Nikkimaria
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikkimaria, (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who chopped Nikkimaria's sig and what else was chopped here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 has a link to dab page doi - may be best to convert to {{cite book}} template to match others. Keith D (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you're looking at the right one? Ref 27 is already a {{cite book}}. LittleJerry (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well-written and seemingly well-sourced. ceranthor 13:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, giraffes can coexist with livestock, since they feed in the trees above their heads. - citation?

Mammal encyclopedia I believe. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In comparison with other ruminants, such as deer and cattle, the giraffe has proportionally larger eyes, with which it can locate food and distant predators from its great height. - This comes from Mammal Anatomy, I assume. Could you clarify?
Yes it does. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Southern Africa, giraffes feed on all acacias, especially Acacia erioloba. The tongue and lips are tough enough to allow them to feed on trees with sharp thorns. - Do these both come from Mammal Anatomy as well?
The latter does. I can remove the former if it will be a problem. LittleJerry (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, the name of the tree means Camel Thorn or Giraffe Thorn, but if you wish to use a citation one's available at [29] -- simply type 'giraffe' in the search bar provided. ceranthor 16:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but no thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments this is looking a lot better than when I last saw it (I was trying to read it on my android). I do think we're in striking distance of FA status at first look. Will have a proper read-through and jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now one of the interesting issues about a subject with a broad body of material to draw from is that we could keep expanding this article to a huge size, so obviously we have to draw the line somewhere. It currently stands at around 4800 words/29kb of prose, which could be a little bigger if we found content worth including. It'd be good to get a consensus on optimum size here.
The giraffe has been prized by various cultures.. - "prized" sounds really weird in this context - I am trying to think of a better word "The giraffe has intrigued by various cultures..." maybe...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite its popularity, it has been extirpated from many parts of its former range, and some subspecies are classified as endangered... - I think a great many "popular" animals have suffered..including just about all megafauna. I'd lose the first bit and flip so we put the sentence which says "least concern" first followed by the one with extirpation and vanishing subspecies. More sober and depressing that way..
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked some convert templates - it looks funny if you have one unit abbreviated and other not. I suggest you abbreviate the rest.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Neck section you have both the word and symbol for "per cent" - I'm not fussed which one you use but it should be consistent for the whole article.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, it is looking much better on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. I am just thinking about that again and reading over. These big articles are tricky when trying to figure out what else we need including. I am waiting a bit to see what others think too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The episode on the giraffe for Inside Nature's Giants mentioned that the giraffe's neck is held up by elastic muscles that make the neck revert to it's default position after it is done lowering it's head to the ground. Unforunately I could not find this fact in the literature I have. I also wish there was more information on the portrayals of the giraffe in African cultures. Also, atleast two sources say that the giraffe has to breathe more regularly than expected for an animal of it's size but other sources suggest that the giraffe breathes slowly and it's anatomy prolongs the time it takes to inhale and exhale. I don't know if there's a contradiction here. LittleJerry (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I agree that those three points are worth including in the article. I might be able to find something with fulltext/uni access and will try a bit later today. I'd definitely feel more comfortable on comprehensiveness-grounds with those items in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [30] might help, it includes: "The histological data also indicated that the elastic fibers of the nuchal ligament of the giraffe are the thickest among the various mammals (Bianchi 1989)." --99of9 (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I managed to solve all three isolves. I contacted Graham Mitchell and he informed me that the studies now show that the giraffe is a slow breather. The Mammalian Species mentions the ligment and I managed to find a little more information on the giraffe's role in African culture. LittleJerry (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. There is a lot of matching content here: [31] but most of this site's content seems to have been copied form Wikipedia without attribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the sexual selection paragraph against the sources: :*The other main theory, the sexual selection hypothesis, proposes that the long necks evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic, giving males an advantage in "necking" contests (see below) to establish dominance and obtain access to sexually receptive females.[11]

*Supported by the source

:*In support of this theory, males have proportionally larger necks than females,[40][11]

*Supported, but unclear, does "larger" mean longer or heavier or both? Both references do their allometry against neck mass, not length.
Forget about this one. Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Which cite justifies the statement "males have proportionally longer necks than females"? All the allometry in these two papers seems to be against mass, not length. The Tanzanian one did length as well, but found little difference between males and females on that factor. --99of9 (talk) 01:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite [11] mentions length. LittleJerry (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Sure, but can you point to specifically where it justifies the sentence I quoted? The closest I can find is "Neck lengths also differ between the sexes" on p777, but the figure it gives is an absolute average, not relative to the rest of the body, and (unlike mass mentioned immediately after) not controlled for the mass of the giraffe (which is obviously different between m/f). --99of9 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. LittleJerry (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Ok, I think that is supportable, and works ok in the argument. Striking this section.
*and males with longer, bigger necks are more successful in dominance displays and courtship behavior.[45]
*Not supported by the source as far as I can see. The article does mention correlations with age, size, and confidence, but never even height, neck length, or most importantly neck/leg ratios. The concluding paragraphs are fairly clear, and include the sentences "a dominance hierarchy in which each individual's relative standing is determined by his age and size" and "Frequency of courtship was correlated with age of bull."

:*However, a major criticism of this theory is that it fails to adequately explain why female giraffes also have long necks.[46]

  • Possibly worded too strongly (I would strike the word major). Reference [40] replies with "However, sexual selection does not directly predict allometrically longer necks but more powerful ones for males.", and "The critical point is that males need only a long neck to reach high-level leaves (natural selection hypothesis), not a massive and ever increasing one to do so. For sexual selection, this is required and predicted for males and not for females.". But hmmm... isn't the whole point of the theory to explain why the neck is LONG???
  • I'm happy to discuss this further, it seems the mass/length issue is subtle, and hard to summarize. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced and fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • necking is the only form of combat recorded
  • I thought I read in one of those sources that they sometimes stare one another down. Does that count as combat? --99of9 (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it counts as combat or not, it's interesting. Physical combat is expensive to both animals; no point doing it if the outcome is a foregone conclusion; so many species size each other up and only fight if they must. (But I am guilty of WP:OR here; please don't use it unless there's a source). --Stfg (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Combat requires physical contact. Staring would be just intimidation. LittleJerry (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "It stands 5–6 m (16–20 ft) tall and has an average weight of 1,200 kg (2,600 lb) for males and 830 kilograms (1,800 lb) for females." I'm not sure why males are weighed in "kg" and females in "kilograms". Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "They are also nearly invulnerable to predation, although lions, leopards, spotted hyenas and wild dogs prey on calves, and lions take adults in some areas." The list of predators that eat calves appears to contradict the the claim of being "nearly invulnerable". Perhaps adults are "nearly invulnerable" to predation? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Males mate with multiple females." Each male mates with multiple females? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the word "each": "Dominant males each mate with multiple females." Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", paragraph 2: "Mathurin Jacques Brisson erected the genus Giraffa in 1762." "Erected"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", the picture "Genetic subdivision in the giraffe based on mitochondrial DNA sequences" is rather complex and needs a more detailed caption. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have tried to simplify and clarify the new caption, including internal links. Despite this, the explanation of the phylogenetic tree is really only intelligible to a biologist. (A similar problem arose at the FAC for "Slow loris".) I wonder if the image would better with the phylogram cropped away? I'm not sure; I welcome other opinions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think only a few sentence have that problem. I give it more internal links. LittleJerry (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Axl invites other opinions, here goes: I am not a biologist; I understand all but the last two sentences; but also, I'm quite happy when articles have some tough stuff -- it's an invitation to explore it if we want. So my vote would go for keeping it (but maybe link "paraphyletic" too. "paraphyletic haplotypes" is by far the hardest thing to understand in this). HTH --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. camelopardalis, G. c. reticulata and G. c. angolensis use the passive present perfect: "It has been estimated...". G. c. tippelskirchi and G. c. giraffa use the passive present "It is estimated...". In my opinion, the passive present is preferable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", I am surprised to see that every subspecies has a population of "fewer than x". While this is reasonable for small populations such as G. c. peralta and G. c. camelopardalis, it becomes meaningless for large populations such as G. c. tippelskirchi. "Fewer than 40,000" means "somewhere between 0 and 40,000". Why didn't the authors of the source include lower limits for the populations? In my opinion, this is a cynical ploy by the conservationist authors to mislead naive readers. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that means that the number is in the ball park of the stated figure but lower. LittleJerry (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that a guess? Are there any other reliable sources around with subspecies population values? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are the most reliable we can find. LittleJerry (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. tippelskirchi: "It occurs in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania." How about "It lives in central and southern Kenya and in Tanzania."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Taxonomy and evolution", subsection "Subspecies", G. c. rothschildi: "It may also occur in South Sudan." Perhaps "It also lives in South Sudan."? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 1: "The giraffe's fur may serve as a chemical defence, as it is full of antibiotics and parasite repellents that give the animal a characteristic scent." "Antibiotics" refer to chemicals produced by micro-organisms. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The giraffe has the longest recurrent laryngeal nerve." I believe that's true of living animals, but extinct sauropods had longer recurrent laryngeal nerves. It's worth clarifying this in the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "The shape of the skeleton limits the static lung volume of the giraffe." This is true for all animals with skeletons. How is this different for the giraffe? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the word "static". That isn't relevant here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", paragraph 2: "Its long neck and narrow windpipe give it a high amount of dead space." The long neck does indeed increase the dead space. However the narrow windpipe actually reduces the amount of dead space. Both factors increase the resistance of the airway and lead to increased energy expenditure during breathing. [Disclosure: I am a pulmonologist.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    After reviewing the source, I have also added the following sentence: "An increased tidal volume also tends to compensate for the high dead space volume." Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy and morphology", subsection "Legs, locomotion and posture", paragraph 3: "The giraffe has one of the shortest sleep requirements of any mammal, averaging only 4.5 or 4.6 hours of sleep per day." When quoting an average, why use two different values? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The change doesn't help. When stating an average, a single value should be used, not a range. What exactly does the source say? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The range "4.5-4.6 hours" means "4 hours 30 minutes to 4 hours 36 minutes". This narrow range surely doesn't reflect the sleeping hours of all giraffes. Nor is it appropriate as a "typical" sleep duration. LittleJerry, can you please quote here the exact text that the source uses? Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the whole article and I don't remember puting it there. I fixed it though. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a little extra info from the source. I have full access, but the abstract is a good summary. Key sentences include "The 24-h sleep profile had a main bimodal nocturnal sleep period between 20.00 and 07.00 hours, with a trough between 02.00 and 04.00 hours, and several short naps between 12.00 and 16.00 hours. Total sleep time (TST), excluding the juvenile, was 4.6 h, whereby PS comprised only 4.7%. TST was not age dependent, but the lowest amount of RS and the highest amount of SS occurred in the oldest and the two oldest animals, respectively. Sleep was fragmented, as indicated by the predominance of RS episodes lasting less than 11 min.". --99of9 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", paragraph 2: "The nerve starts at the brain, runs down the length of the neck and crosses over a blood vessel at the top of the heart before looping back up the neck and ending at the larynx." I now have a copy of "Mammal Anatomy". "Mammal Anatomy" does indeed state "the giraffe's laryngeal nerve ... measures around 15 feet (4.5 m) long. It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." I believe that this is a common misconception. The recurrent laryngeal nerve actually begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. The left recurrent laryngeal nerve crosses under the arch of the aorta. The right nerve crosses under the right subclavian artery. I believe that "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx" by Harrison states that the giraffe's left recurrent laryngeal nerve is about two metres [six feet] long. Perhaps it could be argued that the nerve fibres run from the brain, around the aorta, to the larynx. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed. I believe the book was measuring both the left and right nerves together. LittleJerry (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe that "Mammal Anatomy" was measuring both the left and right nerves together, because it states "It begins at the brain and runs down the length of the neck." As I already stated, the recurrent laryngeal nerve begins as a branch from the vagus nerve. Indeed you can clearly see this on the diagram that you added to the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I added in this information with a new source. I find it hard to believe that the nerve is only 6 feet long. That's the length of the neck itself and if the nerves runs down the neck and loops back up, it would have to be much longer. LittleJerry (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The recurrent laryngeal nerve does not run down the neck and loop back up: that is my point. Look again at the diagram that you added. You will see that the recurrent laryngeal nerve arises from the vagus nerve, near the aorta. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Graham Mitchell informed me via e-mail that the nerve is 15 feet long. I presume he means the entire vagus nerve since the recurrent laryngeal nerve is a branch of it. So I made the appropriate changes. LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I decided to remove it altogether. LittleJerry (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The most recent text still wasn't quite right. I understand why you deleted it. On the other hand, the information is often used by proponents of evolution (notably Richard Dawkins) as evidence. I'll see if I can draft a sentence or two that is both accurate and supported by a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this: "In mammals, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer than the right; in the giraffe, the left recurrent laryngeal nerve is over 30 cm longer than the right one. The recurrent laryngeal nerve is longer in the giraffe than in any other extant animal; the left nerve is over two metres long." The reference is "The Anatomy and Physiology of the Mammalian Larynx, DFN Harrison, page 165".
    The exact text from Harrison is: "All mammals, however, have recurrent laryngeal nerves longer on the left than the right. Differences may vary from 0.8 cm in the rat, 13 cm in dog, 11 cm in humans to over 30 cm in the giraffe.... The left recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is the longest nerve in the animal kingdom being over 2 m long." Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the suggestion. I put it in. LittleJerry (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool. Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added some more information with a good reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physical appearance and anatomy", subsection "Neck", paragraph 1: "This elongation, which occurs in large part after birth, is a 150 percent increase in vertebrae length over similar-sized animals." Does this mean that the length of the vertebral column is two and a half times the length in similar-sized animals? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it means an increase in neck vertebrae length. LittleJerry (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    So the neck vertebrae are two and a half times as long as those in similar-sized animals? This is not clear in the article. What exactly does the source say? I'm not even sure which source is being used here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that you have deleted it. Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Habitat and feeding", paragraph 1, the information about the tongue should be in the "Physical appearance and anatomy" section. Also, I believe that the tongue is dark blue in colour? It's worth mentioning this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed for the first. I've heard about the tongue color and that its meant to protect against sunburn but I can't find a source. LittleJerry (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Would this web page be suitable as a source? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. LittleJerry (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "During courtship, dominant males will displace subordinates from the presence of the females by staring and walking towards them." The subordinates are males? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Social structure and breeding habits", paragraph 2: "at any given time one in twenty males were engaged in non-combative necking behavior with another male." I thought that necking was their form of combat? What is "non-combative necking behavior"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 1: "Within a few hours of birth, the calf can run around and is indistinguishable from one a week old.... The horns, which have lain flat since it was in the womb, become erect within a few days." These two statements are contradictory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Birthing and parental care", paragraph 2: "Giraffes only defend their own young; they form calving herds for selfish reasons." What are these selfish reasons? This statement seems to be rather speculative to me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if this is suitable as part of this discussion but since it involves a known mistakes in a potential FA article: How about a corrected map in the taxobox? The person that made the current taxobox map made a misinterpretation of the IUCN map. (IUCN have since changed their maps to a format that perhaps will be more useful in the future but presently has some fundamental usage problems.) IUCN divided the range into subspecies but subspecies names were not written over every single dot on the map. The two small dots in Uganda are Rothschild giraffe (not Nubian giraffe). There should also be a small Rothschild giraffe dot in central Kenya at Lake Nakuru. 212.10.91.63 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, map was outdated. I contacted the author of the current map. LittleJerry (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Author of the SVG map (me) has corrected herself now  ›mysid (☎✎) 15:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What exactly were you trying to do with citation 1 (instance a)? Sven Manguard Wha? 09:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was like that before. Other animal articles have the same. LittleJerry (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It verifies much of the information in the taxobox. --Stfg (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [32].

Derek Jeter[edit]

Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third time is the charm? I acknowledge that this article wasn't close to FA the first time I nominated it. The second time, I dealt with all of the issues except shoddy prose before it was failed. I felt time should have been extended because I was actively working on it. So, I took some time and I feel that now, this page is ready to be promoted to FA status. Whatever problems remain should be minor enough for me to handle in a short amount of time. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why so many citations in the lead? Most of this material should be cited in the article body instead
  • Source for 2002 ESPY?
  • "Jeter returned to bat .324, losing the batting title to Bill Mueller, who batted .326." - source?
  • "Jeter won his second consecutive Gold Glove in 2005, as his low range factor rose to 4.76 and ranked second among AL shortstops." - source? Check for other statements lacking sources
  • Be consistent in how web citations are notated
  • Be consistent in when publishers are included
  • Check wikilinking for consistency
  • Book sources need page numbers
  • Don't write titles in all-caps
  • Publications should generally be italicized
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • Don't duplicate cited sources in External links
  • FN 80: publisher?
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not

In general, citation format should be made much more consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think I have fixed citations to be consistent. I may have missed a few things here and there. Regarding FanGraphs and TheBaseballCube, we do consider these reliable statistics-based sites. LoHud Blogs are written by beat writers of The Journal News and published by the same newspaper. Regarding the inline citations, (1) is it a problem to have those things cited in the lead? I am sure that those things are mentioned in the body as well. I can remove the citations if you prefer. As for (2) citations that are also external links, I added citations to [33] in text where it was suggested in the second FAC try that statistics should have inline citations. Should I remove them and refer people to the external links section? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – These are more content-based than what I usually offer, both because I know a lot about the subject and because FAC has been called out on the carpet for not having enough of this.

  • There are a bunch of paragraphs that don't have citations at the end. This means that at least some content is likely uncited, and it makes me wonder how much of the rest is well-supported by the sources.
  • I think the Jeter–Chad Curtis "confrontation" is given some undue weight by having an entire paragraph devoted to it. That's longer than the paragraph on his 1999 season in general, and the incident really wasn't that significant in the grand scheme of things.
  • "Jeter's tentative deal fell through, and he agreed to a one-year deal for $10 million." If I'm not mistaken, I rememeber Jeter winning a salary arbitration case that year. I don't think it was merely an agreement between he and the team.
  • The performance in the 2000 World Series is kind of glossed over. We only get his statistics and the fact that he won the World Series MVP award. To me, this is at least as worthy of extended commentary as the catches against Oakland and Boston. It could at least be said that he hit a home run on the first pitch of Game 4, and another in the clincher.
  • The 2001 November statistics are given, but no general playoff statistics. I'd say that they should be added, because his statistics weren't great if the World Series home run isn't considered. I've seen an explanation that he was playing injured after making a tumbling catch in the last game against Oakland. Not sure if you can source all this, but it sounds at least somewhat useful to me.
  • I don't see anything sourcing that Jeter tied or broke the old Yankee Stadium hits record. The source at the end of this paragraph just covers his speech at the last Yankee Stadium game. It's crucial that what's in the article can be verified by a source.
    • Jeter tying the Yankee Stadium hits record still needs a cite; the new ref only covers him breaking the record. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Added a source of his tying the record. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • From 2009–present: "based on the rationale that Jeter has a higher on-base percentage than Damon, but grounds into double plays more often." This is sorely in need of an update, given that Johnny Damon hasn't played for the Yankees in two years.
  • Something else to fix: "behind the Minnesota's Joe Mauer...". One word too many in there.
  • A couple of suggestions for the Player profile section. First, I would consider moving the Postseason performance sub-section to here; it seems like a better fit here than after the season summaries. Given how his postseason accomplishments are what people really talk about when profiling him, I think there's some logic to doing it that way. Second, reference 20 has some interesting items about Jeter's confidence, how he's an aggressive hitter, and how he could still get hits even while having trouble with his swing. Adding one or two things from here would really help strengthen this section, which doesn't have that much in the way of details.
    • Well, he can't literally swing at every pitch in the strike zone, or he would never have a called strike against him. No one in baseball history can have that said about them, no matter how great they are at hitting. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check refs 27 and 36 for some citation formatting bugs that should be resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • While here, it looks like refs 26 and 27 are the same and can be combined. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On it. According to Cot's Contracts (which I believe is reliable), Jeter and the Yankees avoided arbitration in 2000, but I'll look for news sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay. I have ref'd up things that needed refs, including the 2000 contract. I've made sure that every paragraph ends with a ref. I took out the Chad Curtis incident entirely, which I agree is not important in the long run. I think your idea of moving the "postseason" section to the "player profile" section is a great idea, so I did it. All the other fixes are made.
    • I do wonder your opinion of the sourcing of statistics with BR using inline citations, which the above reviewer commented on. I want to know if I should make that change or if it's okay as is. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd definitely leave the cites, unless there's another reliable source you can easily replace the BR refs with. I can't say that it bothers me that much, but I do think Nikki's right that the guidelines discourage repeating sources as ELs. I'd lean toward taking the EL out, rather than the other way around. Oh, and you're right about him having no arbitration in 2000. The case I was thinking of was actually in 1999. My mistake. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's hard to remember who went to arbitration last year, let alone more than ten years ago. I removed BR from the ELs. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I have read the lead and first section and have found several prose issues which make me think this article is not quite ready yet. The prose is choppy and repetitive and it is hard to follow for this reason. I have had a quick scan of the remainder of the article and see other similar issues. I would recommend a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved copy-editor. I have listed some concerns below but these are examples only and the prose needs looking at very carefully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second paragraph of lead: out of 8 sentences, 5 begin "Jeter" or "He". The other three start with short phrases (The following year, In addition, Through 2011), followed by "he" or "Jeter".
  • Third paragraph of lead: Three sentences all beginning Jeter. Then the first sentence of the fourth paragraph begins "Jeter". The other two sentences also begin with nouns which adds to the repetitive effect. And the last sentence of the first paragraph begins "he". Out of 13 consecutive sentences, 10 begin outright with "he" or "Jeter". This makes for very heavy going and is not FA level prose.
  • I notice similar problems in the Early life section. There seems to be a simple, repetitive sentence structure of noun-verb-subject, with short additional phrases in one or two sentences. The overall effect is a series of short, choppy, disjointed sentences. I would suggest rewording a few sentences to give some variety; for example "Jeter became inspired to play baseball by watching Dave Winfield play with the Yankees" could easily be altered to "Watching Dave Winfield play with the Yankees inspired…"
  • The paragraphs in this section are also on the short side: The third paragraph is three sentences, the fourth and fifth are two sentence, the sixth is one sentence.
  • "earning an All-State honorable mention": jargon which should be explained for the non-expert.
  • "Jeter was scouted extensively by Hal Newhouser…" I understand the intention, but the effect is a bit jargony. How can one person scout extensively? A better effect may be to spell it out: "Houston Astros scout Hal Newhouser watched Jeter play many times…"
  • "and the speculation was that he would insist on a salary bonus of $1 million or more to forgo his college scholarship and sign.": Speculation from whom? To sign for whom: the previous sentence says the Astros did NOT sign him. Sign what? Why would someone of this age be worth so much? Why so much speculation?
  • I'm not sure this section really hangs together to say how good he was. It mentions awards and the prospective giant contract, but nothing really says that X thought he was going to be brilliant. Dry stats do not really give this impression, particularly to the non-specialist.
  • "the only place Derek Jeter's going is to Cooperstown" What is Coopertown? (Sorry for my ignorance, but there may be many readers who wonder this).
  • The end of this section jumps all over the place. Scouted by the Astros, turned down by the Astros in favour of Nevin, baseball scholarship, giant contract speculation, Nevin signs for Astros, scout quits, Yankees (when did they come into the picture) sign him, will he attend college, no he's going to Cooperstown (? See above), turns professional, signs. There is no narrative behind this and that makes it hard to follow.
  • Not an opposable issue, but I always have reservations about FACs for current sportsmen and women. What is to say that they will not have a huge number of events in their lives which need adding before they retire and how can be guarantee that additions will keep the standards high enough for a FA? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just realised I opposed this article last time as well, for some very similar reasons. I would have hoped that these issues would have been fixed before it was renominated here. To re-iterate, I would recommend a thorough copy-edit by someone who has not spent any time on this article to give it some fresh eyes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All good points, which I will try to address by the end of the week. Regarding that last issue, I can understand that things will change for Jeter between now and his retirement, but most things will not change. He's under contract with the Yankees until he's nearly 40, at which point he's likely to retire. Mariano Rivera, which is FA, is a good article for comparison to this one, or at least it will be once I improve this article's prose enough. Rivera, like Jeter, has been an active Yankee since the mid-1990s.At most, he could try to play for another season or two after this. His status as a future Hall of Famer has been pretty well established by the first sixteen seasons of his career, and anything else he does from here would be basically icing on the cake. That said, if I can't get this passed to FA status, I probably won't try again until after his retirement. The prose at this article is certainly better than it was as of its last nomination, and I hope I can get it up to FA status soon. I'll give it a thorough prose rewrite and see if I can recruit a helper. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough on his career probably winding down. I would never oppose on this issue alone but always like to check how much "change" is likely. It is more of a concern when very young sportsmen are put up at FAC. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've improved the prose in the first sections, somewhat. Perhaps not enough to sway you yet, but I am enlisting help and will take a deeper look myself. While I agree that sentences shouldn't be repetitive, it's hard to make many of them anything but "noun-verb-clause", which I don't think should make one oppose the FA nomination.
  • After considering the content of your comments, I notice that a lot of them stem from the fact that you don't understand baseball, which is my fault because that means the page isn't accessible enough (for instance, Cooperstown, New York is the hometown of the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum, and since that's cumbersome to say, we simply say "Cooperstown" as a synonym for "Hall of Fame", which I've now made clear through prose). I've tried to add a little bit more to explain amateur scouting (amateur players get paid substantial amounts of money just to make them turn pro). Newhouser's quitting in protest and Groch's Cooperstown comment should indicate just how highly they regarded Jeter. I hope that's sufficiently clear now. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked again in detail yet and won't until the copy-editing is finished. A quick glance seemed marginally better, but I should point out that 1a of the FA criteria states that a FA is "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." In my view, sentences such as those you mention would not meet this criteria if there were too many following that structure. On your second comment, the Cooperstown thing seems much clearer now. I know it is tricky in these articles to keep it clear enough for the general reader but not diluting the baseball side of things too much. I have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the game but can follow the gist usually, and only comment about it when I am lost completely! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've started copyediting the article, and I've noticed some key things that are missing. First, no mention is made of Jeter being All-Star Game MVP in 2000, which I believe was the first time a player was MVP of the World Series and All-Star Game in the same season. In fact, no mention is made of him making the All-Star team until his 9th selection. Also, I think it would be good to get a quote from Jeter after being named captain. After all, it was his dream to play for the Yankees and here he is being named captain! Actually, a few quotes from Jeter sprinkled throughout the article wouldn't hurt. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:09, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh. Coulda sworn the AS MVP was in prose. I'll fix that and try to add quotes tomorrow. The issue there is that, as beat writers are on the record saying, Jeter doesn't give good copy. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added mention of his ASG and WS MVP awards. I will add detail on his All-Star game selections tonight, and try to find a quote or two. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He just says he wants me to be a leader, like I have been. The impression I got is just continue to do the things I've been doing."

-Derek Jeter[1]

      • I'm in the process of editing the prose to mention his All-Star appearances. However, I don't know that adding any quotes from Jeter will help. To the right is a quote from Jeter on being named captain. Pretty ho hum if you ask me. I'll look further to see if there's anything more interesting, but as Mark Feinsand of the Daily News beat said, "He's not the most interesting quote in the world; that's by design." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth adding something about his very scrawny build when he was first signed to the Yankees organization. Sounds like there were quite a few doubts whether he could be a big-time player in such a skinny frame. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that. There's a NYT article I saw where Andy Pettitte made a comment along those lines. I'll add it after lunch. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [34].

2010 Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

Nominator(s): Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article for the reasons previously stated. The article has been carefully rewritten following the withdrawal of the first nomination; the previous nomination apparently fell by the wayside through lack of activity. On successful promotion, I hope to submit for TFA on 10 December, first anniversary of the award ceremony. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - ex. [12][49] instead of [49][12]
  • According to this, Netease is a news aggregator - was FN 40 originally from a different source?
  • FN 64: page(s)?
  • FN 63: I'm not sure citing a search-engine results page is the best approach here. Is there no secondary source that draws this conclusion? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • footnotes now in numerical order
    • FN 40: the citation, together with its accompanying text are removed as minor coatracks to the article.
    • FN 64: page number - hard copy request under way. will update asap
    • FN 63: presumably you meant FN73? Now replaced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I should probably preface my vote by noting that, according to the nifty tool at the side, I am the second highest contributor to this article. That said, I believe I am still objective enough to vote. I just ran through the article, making some small copyedits as I went (please check over them to make sure I haven't messed anything up), and I believe the article meets the criteria – it's well-written, well-referenced, presented with a neutral POV and follows the MoS. I'm sure Nikkimaria's comments and anyone else's will be resolved by Ohconfucius. Jenks24 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-links, no dead external links, wikilinks look good, one problem with WP:LEAD:

  • There was apparently some misunderstanding in the last FA-discussion. Direct quotations, and contentious material about living persons, must be attributed with a reliable source immediately, regardless of their placement in lead or not. References for most other non-contentious or summary informations (except those 2 cases) can be placed in the main text. Please see WP:V, WP:LEAD and especially WP:LEADCITE for more information. In the actual lead i would cite all quotes (or rephrase them in your own words, where possible) and the 2-3 most controversial statements. GermanJoe (talk) 19:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad I didn't remove these outright, choosing instead to comment them out. The refs are now reinstated; I did a corresponding reordering of refs. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead says the award was "bitterly attacked by the PRC government and the state-owned media." Who is deciding that the attacks were "bitter"? And that they were attacks rather than legitimate grievances? The sentence "The government strongly denounced the award, and summoned the Norwegian ambassador in Beijing to make a formal protest", uses appropriate neutral language, and I'd like to see more of that, and less of the "bitter attacks". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the Chinese media section: "Students, apparently unanimously..." apparently comes from the source, though is this comment factual or a personal viewpoint with implied negative tones? Is there widespread concern that the students' view were not unanimous, or is just that particular writer who is saying this? Either way, a rewording for clarity and to avoid the suggestion that it is Wikipedia which is casting doubt on the China Youth Daily report would be useful. SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "people with ulterior motives" is put into the mouths of the students. This is not clear from the source, which says it is "used twice in the article". SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liu Xia. "Chinese police cordoned off the area and to prevent her from giving interviews" - this is not given in the two sources cited. The police cordoned off the area, though the Guardian says the police were guarding her house and wouldn't let journalists in, but they didn't know why - and then they do a phone interview. The other source has Liu Xia saying "They want to distance me from the media." But that is her opinion, and should be presented as such. Also, the sentence needs sorting - is it meant to say "Chinese police cordoned off the area to prevent her from giving interviews" or "Chinese police cordoned off the area and prevented Liu Xia from giving interviews"? Neither of them suitable anyway. To get the balance right you'd need to have both sides - the police said they were guarding her, she says they wanted to distance her from the media. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Temporary blue hoardings, supposedly construction barriers" - I assume supposedly is taken from the journalist's opinion that the building work was "a peculiar coincidence". It's difficult to mention the barriers without making a leading statement. Perhaps, "By what the Guardian's journalist called 'a peculiar coincidence', construction barriers were erected on both sides of the road at the southern entrance of the residential complex, obscuring the estate." SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship" and "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities". Where is the evidence for this? A little later in the article we are told "Web searches using Chinese search engines for "Liu Xiaobo" in Chinese without attaching the words "Peace Prize," gave information about Liu", which suggests that before the announcement there was no censorship - and, indeed, after the announcement, it was only the Nobel Prize nomination that was being censored as people were still able to access info on him. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided says: "Many have commented in the days since the award that Liu Xiaobo is far from well known in China, and that his victory will never be significant there. This is irrelevant as well as untrue." There appears to be a lack of clarity regarding how eminent he was as a scholar and how much the public were aware of his role in the Tiananmen Square protests and Charter 08. Sources such as the Guardian also talk about him doing prominent things, then says "Thanks to China's strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country.". I feel a nuanced approach to this aspect might be appropriate. A close reading of the more detailed sources, such as the emagzin article below, indicates that he had some form of public presence, but that his publications were banned. This banning appears to have been escalated by some media sources into the public totally forgetting him, as though a widespread brain washing had taken place. How little known could he be, when shortly after Tiananmen Square he was interviewed by the state media? So, banned, yes, unknown, it doesn't appear so. An approach might be to remove the definitive statement saying: "a little-known figure inside the People's Republic of China (PRC) due to official censorship", as well as "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities", and to have a section on Liu Xiaobo which summarises the main points of his life and would include the banning of his publications, and would mention that the media in reporting on the nomination would say that due to "strict censorship, Liu's name is barely known in the country". That would balance the statement, and would move it from a known fact to a media comment. While we should report what sources are saying, we shouldn't present one version as fact, especially when we have sources which present an alternative view. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this as well as our own article - Liu Xiaobo, it seems he was known to the Chinese public, though his books were banned, and he was jailed several times. He is mentioned as "rising to great prominence in 1986". I would think it helpful to have a summary of the man in the article perhaps as the first section. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a tricky topic in regards to NPOV as most of the reporting appears to jump on the bandwagon of any Chinese dissident is immediately worthy of Western support, and few commentators have looked closely at Liu Xiaobo's rather right-wing writings. There is considerable opaqueness, and even a simple fact like how well known he was/is in his homeland cannot be pinned down. The urging of the Chinese authorities that he is little known in China have been taken up only too readily by journalists; though as one of the most public figures in the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, who was afterwards frequently denounced on state TV, I find this odd. And when the state's own newspaper in an effort to show how little known he was, indicate that only 28% of people in Shanghai knew of him,[35] I'm sensing a poorly constructed smokescreen. I think the article is moving in the right direction as regards neutrality and pinning down the facts, and is laudably attempting to present all sides of the story, though I still get the impression that the article is an attack on China's human rights record. It may be that the nature of the topic is that most sources will be biased, and we can't move too far from that without going into original research. However, we can limit any potential bias by the way we present information, and that items which may be seen as negative toward the Chinese authorities are not all foregrounded with the balancing statements coming much later in the paragraph/section/article. I have made a few adjustments here and there in the article which indicate what I mean, though there are other areas which still concern me, such as "the country's Chinese-language media launched a concerted assault on Liu", and I compare that with this more sober line from 2009 Nobel Peace Prize: "There was widespread criticism of the Nobel Committee's decision from commentators and editorial writers across the political spectrum." I think a little less of the emotive military language would be helpful. Having said that, I do find that within the article there is a commendable amount of material gathered from all sources. I feel reassured by the end of the article that all aspects have been covered, including criticism of Liu from The Guardian.[36] I am still just a little bit concerned that the tone may be inclined to be critical of the Chinese government rather than neutral. I think we're almost there, and I wish I could spare more time to help out, but I am off to France in a couple of days to take part in the Nice-Cannes Marathon, and I have a few other on-Wiki matters to sort out before I go. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, inclined to oppose. Sampling the first three paragraphs of the "Nomination and announcement" section of the article, it seems to need a bit of a work-over. I also fully agree with SilkTork's comments, most of which now seem to have been addressed. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Shouldn't Nobel Committee be wikilinked?
  • "The monetary component of the prize is 10 million Swedish kronor (US$1.5 million)." Obvious tense issue: out of date.
  • "Although the Nobel Committee has had a policy of confidentiality of nominations for 50 years" Another tense issue.
  • The Huffington Post reference (Ian Macdougall, 2 February 2010) is dead.
  • "Also on the list were six Chinese dissidents". The source doesn't say there were six, it just mentions six of "A number of Chinese dissidents".
  • "who was jailed for 11 years on 25 December 2010". Seems to be the wrong year. 2009 maybe? And how do we know the exact date?
  • "wrote to lobby on his behalf". Wrote to whom? Publicly or privately? That's important, I would think.
  • "Xu Youyu, and others, wrote an open letter in support of Liu". Was it the same open letter? The source doesn't suggest so. It suggests Xu wrote an article and others joined in an open letter and doesn't suggest they are the same.
  • "The Chinese foreign ministry asserted that awarding Liu the prize would be against Nobel principles, and warned that it would damage ties between the two countries." What two countries? It's not apparent from the context that the article is talking about Norway.
  • "On 7 October 2010, Norwegian television networks reported that the imprisoned Chinese dissident, Liu Xiaobo, was the front-running candidate for the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize". Howcome Liu's suddenly introduced by his full name and "imprisoned Chinese dissident..."? He's been "Liu" in the two previous paragraphs. Also we already know that this article is about "the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize".
  • "experiencing a noticeable increase". "noticeable" seems redundant in the context.
  • Thanks. The specific points you identified have been treated. There may have been connectivity problems with the Huffington article – it's working for me. I will make another pass through to see what others I can pick up. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:23, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article is well-written and remarkably comprehensive, my only concern is that {{Cquote}} and {{Rquote}} aren't used properly. See the templates' Template documentation. The article should use {{Quotation}} and {{Quote box}}. Also, regarding the "Nobel Peace Prize Concert" section—How was this event received in the press, if at all? There was most likely some kind of commentary somewhere. Did any of the performers or hosts make statements about the prize itself, the recipient, the concert, or the ceremony? --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unaware as to the prescribed use of the {{cquote}} template, but consider it more aesthetically pleasing than the {{quotation}} template. However, so as not to be in breach of the conventions, the quotes have been reformatted. As to commentary on the concert itself, that which did exist seems to have disappeared from search engine results. To avoid needing to develop the section on this non-central subject, I merged it into the preceding one. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Your work on this article is highly commendable, especially your commitment to balanced global perspectives on a controversial, relatively recent topic. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The infobox is a bit confusing. Some of the fields is about "2010 Nobel Peace Prize" and some is about "Nobel Peace Prize". I don't think it is useful to have the first and last awarded fields in every article about "xxxx Nobel Peace Prize". It will also look very strange in december when "Currently held by" is updated. Then the winner of the 2010 award, which this article is about, will not be mentioned in the box but the 2011 winners will. I suggest removing the three last fields and add a field for the 2010 winner. The fileds for location etc may be useful to keep if it has changed (I don't know if it always have been in Oslo) but fields that will be exactly the same in all "xxxx Nobel Peace Price" articles seems unnessecary. Iusethis (talk) 10:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Media Review This page is surprisingly not blocked in the PRC. My only issue is that I'd appreciate it if someone could translate the Chinese descriptions into English for the images that do not have English descriptions on their file information pages. It's not a requirement, but it is a kindness. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. Looks like Wikipedia is going to get blocked in China for a few days after the 10th. Yay me.
  • Spotcheck concern 3/153 cites for supporting their claims, plagiarism, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • fn50 (Branigan 10 Dec 2010) clear
    • fn100 (Dasgupta, Saibal 13 Oct 2010) "conspicuously silent" may be an overstretch. Please check any emphatic claims against their sources, or respond to this concern inline, as to why it isn't an overstretch?
    • fn150 (news.com.au 13 Dec 2010) clear
  • Comment. The lead looks good. Please ping me when you've got some kind of resolution on the issues raised above ... I expect I'll be able to support on prose. - Dank (push to talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. Reading the first couple of body paragraphs and a bit more at random I found several examples of weak prose and one apparent chronological error. The style is also somewhat jerky; it feels like a sequence of disconnected sentences rather than a smoothly written continuous narrative of events. The oppose is weak because I haven't reviewed the whole article yet; I'll be happy to revisit once the items below are fixed.

  • "It was reported that Russian human rights activist, Svetlana Gannushkina, the International Space Station, and three founders of the internet – Larry Roberts, Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee and the Internet itself – were among the nominees." A couple of problems with this. I'd suggest deleting the comma after "activist": as it stands, Svetlana seems to be the second item in the list. The use of parenthetical dashes makes the Internet seem to be included among the three founders of the Internet. I'd suggest restructuring the sentence anyway; when the list includes the ISS and humans I think you should be kinder to the reader and put the "Among the nominees were" first.
  • "Having studied Western philosphy, his ideas were provocative": this is a non sequitur as it stands -- I think you mean something like "He had studied Western philosophy, and his article include Western ideas that were found provocative by Chinese readers".
  • "Since his involvement there ... the Chinese authorities censor his views as a subversive": it would read more naturally to say "have censored", or even "his views have been censored by" -- "since" doesn't usually work well with a declarative present.
  • "The Chinese foreign ministry warned Norway that awarding Liu the prize would be against Nobel principles, and that it would damage ties between the two countries." This appears to be out of position in the article; it's cited to a Time article that makes it clear the statement was in response to the actual award, but its position in this article makes it appear the statement was issued prior to the award.

When I got this far I skipped further down the article to see if I would find frequent prose concerns and it does appear better, but I did find these:

  • "Although relatively unknown in China through the efforts of the authorities, those who had heard about Liu had mixed views about him." Dangling modifier: those who had heard about Liu were not relatively unknown in China.
  • "One person claimed that his SIM card was deactivated after sending a text message to a relative about the Nobel Peace Prize." Same problem.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [37].

Exchequer of Pleas[edit]

Nominator(s): Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it fulfils the necessary criteria. What other reasons are there? :p. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough reason, I guess. And I suppose I'd better play devil's advocate as one of the local counsel. I'll do it over the next two-three days, probably in installments. A quick glance looked really good!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank my learned friend for his submission :P. Ironholds (talk) 00:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why not include both authors in citations to Fritze?
  • Is Vincent 1903 or 1993?
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Check wikilinking in Bibliography
  • What does UNC stand for? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    All fixed or clarified in the text; I can't find any double periods. Could you point them out to me? Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, found it :). Ironholds (talk) 04:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review - All good here. Ironholds should do image description pages more often; I got a laugh from the lead image's Author section. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Enjoyable read, but then I'm a lawyer with a liking for legal history. A number of issues:
Lede
  • The lede seems a discouragement to reading, with two rather heavy paragraph. I would like to see much more of a highlights approach, paragraphs of no more than four sentences, and no more than three (in a pinch, four) paragraphs.
  • Attempted a fix; what do you think?.
History
  • "followed the king as he went " Perhaps a more formal term than "went"? In his travels?
  • " was the oldest common law court," Perhaps "first", which sets up a pleasing dichotomy between "first" and "last".
  • the word "split" is used fairly often. Consider substituting synonyms.
  • "There are few other records earlier than 1580," Other than ... and is it actually more accurate to state "known to date from before 1580"?
  • "The Dukes were seen " by whom? do not let the passive voice deprive the reader of detail.
  • "Fanshawe's procedures were considered excellent," procedures for what? Courtroom? Administration? Or are we talking form pleadings here?
  • " and the Court of Requests became invalid after the Privy Seal was lost, which it was dependant upon for its jurisdiction" I looked at the Court of Requests and am no wiser about what happened to the Privy Seal. I think you need to be a bit clearer. Did someone forget the key to the washroom and it became inoperative?
  • Done, but you may want to read through and check it; not entirely sure it parses. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't tell if this article thinks the ECW ended in 1649, or in 1660. And I think something specific needs to be said about what happened to this court under the Commonwealth.
  • Clarify? And I'm afraid I can't find any coverage of that period.
  • "18th-century Acts of Parliament treated them as the same body, merely referring to "courts of equity" " Would it be more accurately that the acts treated them the same way, rather than as the same body?
  • Why did the court become suddenly unpopular in the 1830s? Presumably its appellate procedure had not changed, or had it? I think there needs to be a bit more exposition here, and also a contrast with appeals from the Court of Chancery, which I gather was more loser-friendly? Does it have a connection with Fanshawe's procedures being considered until the 1830s?
  • It hadn't been; the appellate procedure for other courts, however, had been much reformed. I can stick in a "This contrasted with the Court of Chancery, where..." bit, if that would help? Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there needs to be some cleanup around the Brougham quote, you are diving back along the timeline. Perhaps say that there had long been calls for the merger of the common law courts, and that in 1828, Henry Brougham, a future Lord Chancellor, stated ...
  • Done; will do the rest of the fixes this afternoon. Ironholds (talk) 08:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would strike the word "finally". A bit POV.
Jurisdiction
  • "This meant that the King's Attorney General represented the plaintiff, allowing him to avoid much of the legal costs associated with a court case" Perhaps "The king was represented by his Attorney General, allowing him to avoid many of the costs of litigation."
  • "the better that they could pay the King; " Perhaps "so that they could better pay the king". Your uses of "king" and "King" appear inconsistent.
  • " The court was also used to enforce the law by prosecuting clerics who, while innocent, had come close to committing an infraction ..." This sentence is unclear. It also needs dividing. It's not clear why the AG would have no incentive to compromise. Even if the King isn't going to be on the hook for lawyer's fees, there's always the question of court time and attorney time and effort to be considered. If the AG doesn't have to try the Smith case, he can spend the afternoon playing golf or the contemporary equivalent.
  • Done the first bit. Re the second, I would assume (solely OR on my part) that, given the expectation that the AG would enforce the law harshly, he wouldn't want to participate in any compromise that would weaken the final settlement and lessen him in the eyes of the monarch. Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Exchequer was unique in having jurisdiction in matters of both equity and the common law, the latter curtailed after the Magna Carta and reserved for the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas. " After giving this paragraph three minute's hard study, I decided you mean that the common law jurisdiction of the Exchequer was temporarily curtailed by Magna Carta, but later grew back. I would clarify this
  • It strikes me that the second paragraph could easily be merged into other material, the first two sentences into the first paragraph of this section and the final sentence into the history section. I'm not sure about the rest of the paragraph, but I'd suggest that it is duplicative of matter found elsewhere, for the most part.
  • "The Exchequer stood on an equal footing ..." This paragraph needs to be clarified as to time.
  • The incident involving the Red Book, is that King's Bench to Exchequer or the other way around? It's a bit unclear.
  • "a clerk would bring the Red Book of the Exchequer to the King's Bench" seems fairly clear; am I missing something?
If that constituted the transmittal, fine. It could be thought the clerk was coming to fetch the transmittal, placing it in the red book.
  • You mention appeals to the Exchequer Chamber. I thought the problem with the court was the only way out was a (rarely granted) appeal to the Lords?
  • I've rechecked the source, and that's what it says, although this appears to fly in the face of, well...reality. Urgh. Suggestions?

Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess let it go.
Officers
  • " scrapped" The only things that get scrapped in a featured article are made of metal
  • If the Treasurer played no real role in the Exchequer of Pleas, than I'd begin the subsection "The formal head ..."
  • "detached from" independent from.
  • "I would lower case war throughout except when being used as part of a title.
  • So "the civil war" as opposed to "the Civil War"? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a 5th" Perhaps a substitute? I would spell out "5th" as "fifth". Please look at WP:ORDINAL.
  • "Unlike in the Court of King's Bench, the positions were meaningless, in that each Baron had an equal vote in decisions" Well, it wasn't actually meaningless, it determined seniority and precedence. Perhaps a rephrase?
  • Given the Queen's Remembrancer's continuing responsibility for the Trial of the Pyx, did the Court of the Exchequer have any role in it?

That's all I have for now. An interesting effort.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for completion. Yes, on the point about appellate procedure, a very brief contrast with Chancery would be good.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jenks24:

  • As Wehwalt says, it's an interesting read and (from the perspective of someone who has never written an FA) it looks like it should pass FAC. I did have some nitpicks, though:

Lead

  • "split from the curia during the 1190s, sitting as an" – not sure why, but I'd change "sitting" --> "to sit"
  • "much of this business went to the Exchequer" – sorry for being dense, but what business? Do you mean business that had originally gone to the Court of Chancery?
  • "drew closer and closer" – don't think the "and closer" is really necessary, but as the Yanks say, YMMV
  • "brought by the king" – it's pedantic, but I'd change "king" --> "crown" (or "monarch") as there were queens during the Court of Exchequer's existence

Origins

  • "It was originally claimed" – do we know by who? Completely off topic, should I have written "whom" then?
  • I'd suggest that "first concrete records" is incredibly formal/encyclopedic in tone
  • Is that a problem? If so, suggestions....? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ugh, sorry, I meant to say it's not incredibly formal. Basically my suggestion would be to change "concrete" to something like "reliable" or "verifiable". Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 1190s the Exchequer separated from the curia regis, a process which continued until the beginning of the 13th century" – this feels a bit odd, does it mean that the Exchequer continued to separate further away or that it had rejoined the curia regis at the start of the 13th century?

Increasing work and transformation

  • I think it would be better to tell it in chronological order – you seem to tell what happened in the 1547 to 1612 period before the 1501 to 1546 period
  • Not quite sure how to rearrange, to be honest; suggestions? Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm, just read over that section a few times and I'm not so sure anymore. Feel free to disregard the above this comment. Jenks24 (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was led by the Lord Chancellor, a political figure who had been intimately involved in the conflict" – possibly worth naming and linking the actual bloke who was reviled, not just his position, unless that revulsion carried over for multiple Lord Chancellors

Loss of equity jurisdiction and dissolution

  • Looks good

Jurisdiction and relationship with other courts

  • "coming into play" is not that formal/encyclopedic
  • "payment of a debt to the King" – again, it would be my inclination to change "King" to "crown" or "monarch"
  • Worth linking "supersedeas" to supersedeas or wikt: supersedeas?

Treasurer

  • "scrapped" not very formal

Chancellor

  • Looks good

Barons

  • I would suggest changing "1st Baron", 2nd Baron", etc. to "First Baron" and so on (the MoS does not like ordinals), but if the literature is adamant then I guess it's ok

Remembrancer

  • "After 1820, the Remembrancer's broad duties were split up by the Court of Exchequer (England) etc. Act 1820. Instead, two masters were appointed" – I don't think "instead" is right here...

Other offices

  • Looks good

As I said at the top, very nice article. I also made a few tweaks myself, so please check to make sure I haven't screwed anything up. Jenks24 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool; have I missed any of your concerns? I think I got them all. Ironholds (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Thanks for the prompt replies and fixes, I believe you've addressed all my concerns. Just had a quick re-read and nothing jumps out at me, so I'm happy to support (I think it meets the criteria for prose, referencing, neutrality, MoS, etc.). Hope you continue writing articles like this even though you've recently been busy spamming people on WMF business :) Jenks24 (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All looks good. Congratulations.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck, clear ( 9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources) my area of history is labour, not law. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made sure all pre 1950 sources were used appropriately.
    • fns 6; 19 & 20; 10, 11, 12, 29, 31 & 53
    • fn20 Kerly 272's capacity to support the claim of the Court of Appeals in Chancery is obscure to me, but this may be due to an inability to make basic obvious and permissible legal syntheses?
    • Re Guth (2008): Isn't W. Hamilton Bryson entitled to be identified as the source of these thoughts? Maybe the citation of editors only, instead of chapter authors with their chapter title, is a matter of style in this field.
    • fn12 is maybe a little tightly page numbered given it spreads over multiple (yet adjacent) pages. This isn't bad, its a matter of style, but one I find a little foreign. I've previously noted I was raised on strict Turabian.
    • fn53 is an excellent example of admirable and loose paraphrasing, the way we should paraphrase.
      • On the last point - thank you :). What do you mean with "9/67 citations ; 3/14 sources"? Ironholds (talk) 02:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I checked 9 citations of 67 citations that existed (~1/7th of the citations); I checked 3 of the 14 sources used (~1/7th). Given that it is a "spot" check, not a thorough check, I wanted to indicate how large of a spot I checked. This lets the delegates and other readers know how representative my issues are—if I check one citation and find something wrong, I could be cherry picking? It lets you determine if the errors (if any) mean you need to go over the work. Given that the only issue I found was with footnote 20 (and I assume the issue is I don't know how to read institutional law sources correctly), that would indicate that there isn't much to worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Argh, I can't actually see the source for some reason - it cuts out that page and the page after in google books, and my normal resource (a wonderful closed archive of classic legal texts) is now not present thanks to the whole graduation thing :(. Ironholds (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you mean the Kerly book? Whatabout one of these links? BencherliteTalk 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You, sir, are a bloody lifesaver. Fifelfoo, I seem to have bollocksed up transferring that ref over; now replaced with the actual ref. Ironholds (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm sorry, I can't support on prose because there are a lot of little things that don't quite sound right ... but I really suspect it's my lack of skill and not yours. I'll be watching, in case I can help with fielding questions. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Apologies for raising the dust on this apparently abandoned review, but I agree with Dank about the prose, and I'm not altogether happy about the lack of context in the lead for statements such as "The Court of Chancery's reputation for tardiness and expense resulted in much of its business transferring to the Exchequer." Here's just one example of a problem with the prose:

  • "The Exchequer was unique in having jurisdiction in matters of both equity and the common law, the latter initially curtailed after the Magna Carta and reserved for the Court of King's Bench and Court of Common Pleas, although it later grew back." What "later grew back" exactly? The very best you can say about that phrasing is that it's ugly.

I could give many more examples of clunky prose, but this isn't supposed to be a peer review, so I won't. Malleus Fatuorum 00:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In Google Books I found A concise history of the common law by Theodore Frank Thomas Plucknet, a 2001 history which has a section on the Exchequer of Pleas with information that I don't see in the article. Shouldn't this material be included? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:52, 17 December 2011 [38].

Brain[edit]

Nominator(s): Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is ready. I have addressed all the issues that caused the previous nomination to fail, and made many other improvements as well. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - good job for taking on such an important article, but more work is needed. The most concerning deficit is the low citation density - a significant amount of material appears to be unsourced. The citations that are present need to be more consistently formatted, and some are incomplete (ex FNs 21 and 24). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the comment that, to me at least, the number of citations looks to be good, but there are several paragraphs where the final sentence(s) are not referenced. The authors might take a look at citing those entries. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little unsourced material in the article -- I would like to say none, but I'm not perfect so that would surely be an overstatement. I have never found a referencing strategy that makes it 100% clear which references apply to which sentences without repeating refs for every sentence -- something I am very reluctant to do. In a few places where sourcing seemed especially unclear I resorted to "bracketing" a passage with a ref at the beginning and a repetition at the end, but in most places the ref that applies to a sentence that does not have a ref of its own is the last ref before it. I can easily add repeat refs at the end of paragraphs if there is consensus that that's the right solution. Looie496 (talk)
This concern has been addressed. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is thoroughly sourced, but often the citation is at the beginning of a string of sentences it supports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now made an attempt to move all refs to the end of the set of sentences they support. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Nothing approaching this level of detail is available for any other organism" - source?
Hmm. This is so well known in the field that none of the basic sources bothers to say it. I'm sure there are sources but I'm not really sure how to search them out -- it's sort of like searching for a source for the fact that the earth only has one moon. Looie496 (talk) 05:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update -- I finally found an article in the Encyclopedia of Genetics that makes a direct statement about the uniqueness of C. elegans, and added it as a ref. Looie496 (talk) 17:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how initials are punctuated
I believe they are all unpunctuated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 8: missing initials
Fixed, I guess -- not sure what ref this was but nothing in that neighborhood lacks initials now. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how multi-author/editor works are notated
I believe I have changed everything to last-first form now, except possibly a couple where CitationBot generated code that I don't understand. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether journal names are abbreviated and if so how
I changed them all to unabbreviated form, except Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, which I abbreviated Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B (Biological Sciences), which I abbreviated Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London B (Biological Sciences). Is that good enough? Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods and stray hyphens
I went through all the refs and didn't see anything like that, but I'll give another scan. Looie496 (talk) 23:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Web citations need publishers and retrieval dates
All now have access dates. The FlyBrain site is itself a publisher -- its existence is the fact that supports the statement in the article. As for WormBook, I don't know how to handle it: it shares aspects of a website, book, and journal, and none of our cite templates seems to deal with it perfectly. In other parts of the article I cited information from WormBook articles using "cite journal" templates, but here the reference is to the fact that WormBook exists. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 32, 34, 36, 71, 79, 81, 82, 84, 123, 127, 134, 139: page(s)?
They all now have either page ranges or chapter titles. All of those are references for broad generalities that basically sum up the message of a whole book or a major part of a book, so they are not easy to pin down to a specific page -- furthermore I don't actually have any of those books on hand and have had to make due with info from Google Books or other web resources. But I think it ought to be okay. Looie496 (talk) 05:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
I think there was only one error, and I have fixed it -- none are hyphenated now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide locations for publishers
None have locations now. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publishers for journals
No journals have publishers now, I believe -- only books. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how you notate editors of larger works (ie. "In...")
I think this is now consistent but I'm not sure I fully understand what the cite templates do with editors. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent notation for editions
I don't know what this is referring to, but I'll try to spot it. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use consistent naming - for example, Lippincott Williams and Wilkins vs Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Fixed, I think, unless I overlooked something. Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 73, 75: formatting
Both fixed. (Swaminathan and Safi, in case you forget.) Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 74: are you missing a chapter number or title here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few refs added by somebody other than me, and I don't have the book, but I heroically managed to get it from Google Books's snippet view ("Metabolism of the brain"). So it's fixed now. Looie496 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Imazdi 1979

Comment—the citation formatting is inconsistent, and in at least one case, incorrect.

  • With respect to how authors' names are rendered, there is much inconsistency. Most of them are of the form "<last> <initial(s)>" and use commas to separate between multiple authors, while some are "<last>, <inital(s)>" and use semicolons to separate between mulitple authors. It appears that you have used citation templates, but in many cases used |author= rather than using the separate |last#= |first#= to generate the author lists. The latter method, personally, would be preferable since it would ensure that formatting stayed consistent and the COinS metadata would be consistent and correct as well.
I have converted them all to last-first form for at least the first author. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The date for the Hippocrates citation is formatted wrong. Per MOS:DATE: "BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, unspaced, without periods (full stops), and separated from the year number by a space or non-breaking space."
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 21 (FlyBrain) and 24 (WormBook) need publisher information, publication date (if applicable), author(s) (if applicable), and an access date for each.
FlyBrain and WormBook are essentially publishers; their existence is the fact that supports the statements in the article. Referring to them is like referring to Wikipedia as a whole. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm taking no position on the academic practice to use only first or first and middle initials for authors, but since you are using that convention, footnote 52 should be changed to follow it for consistency. Currently, the citation lists "Gerhard Roth und Ursula Dicke" as the author, but that should be "Roth, G(erald); Dicke, U(rsula)". In German, "und" means "and", so you have two names there in "<first> <last>" order, which doesn't follow the formatting of the rest.
I had missed that one. Now fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 53, 54 and 128 have full first names. Like I mentioned above, I would convert them to first initials for consistency unless you're going to add full first names to the other citations.
Fixed, I think. Looie496 (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 71 and 92 should indicate that it is a PDF using the |format= parameter of the template.
Fixed. Looie496 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes 91 and 93 should have a publication date (if applicable) and an access date.
I can't find a publication date -- this online textbook is actively maintained so I'm not sure one would be meaningful. I have added accessdate parameters to both cites. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, why are the shortened footnotes that refer to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development using the book title instead of the author names? I thought that it was standard to use the author names?

Imzadi 1979 → 20:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of Neural Science is a graduate-level textbook edited by Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel, with most of the chapters written by specialists. Citing it as Kandel, Schwartz, and Jessel would therefore be misleading, I think. The other one could be cited as Purves and Lichtman, but the name of the book seems likely to be more meaningful to readers. I will change this if you think it is important. Looie496 (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The referencing appears inadequate, though discussion above indicates that it may simply be non-standard. It is standard to footnote a source for a clause, sentence, or paragraph at the end of that clause, sentence, or paragraph. By not following that standard, it becomes impossible to effectively determine the correct source for a given statement. I cannot support this article until it can be determined whether or not each statement is backed up by the source given. – Quadell (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved all refs to the end of the range of text they support (adding a few in the process). Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl

From the lead section, paragraph 1: "In vertebrates, the brain is located in the head, protected by the skull and close to the primary sensory apparatus of vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell."

Does this imply that in (some) invertebrates, the brain is not located in the head? Not protected by the skull? Not close to the sense organs? (I know the answers, but these need clarification.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually see why this needs clarifying, and don't see how to do it without looking silly. I will admit that I don't like the sentence all that much, and would welcome improvments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about: "The brain is located in the head, usually close to the primary sensory apparatus such as vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell. In vertebrates, the brain is protected by the skull." Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have followed your suggestion but omitting the second sentence, which seems unnecessary and somewhat breaks the flow.Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 3: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view, the function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body."

Is it really helpful to include the first part of that sentence: "From an evolutionary-biological point of view"? Why not just say "The function of the brain is to exert centralized control over the other organs of the body." The following paragraph discusses the philosophical implications. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really comfortable without some qualifier. The notion of a function implies a purpose or goal. Viewed as a physical object, a brain does not have a purpose -- it is only evolutionary theory that justifies assigning a purpose to organs of the body. I might be over-thinking this, though. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 4: "The mechanisms by which brain activity instantiates consciousness and thought have been very challenging to understand."

I had to look up the meaning of "instantiate". Is there a simpler word? I couldn't find one in a thesaurus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "gives rise to", which may not be perfectly ideal, but hopefully is close enough. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Cellular structure", paragraph 3: "Axons transmit signals to other neurons, or to non-neuronal cells, by means of specialized junctions called synapses."

I think that this terminology is slightly loose. From Oxford Concise Medical Dictionary: "Synapse: the minute gap across which nerve impulses pass from one neurone to the next, at the end of a nerve fibre." From Guyton & Hall's Textbook of Medical Physiology, 21st edition, chapter 45, page 557: "The synapse is the junction point from one neuron to the next." The junction of motor neuron and muscle fibre is properly called the neuromuscular junction. From Guyton, chapter 7 (Excitation of Skeletal Muscle: Neuromuscular Transmission and Excitation-Contraction Coupling), page 85: "Each nerve ending makes a junction, called the neuromuscular junction, with the muscle fiber near its midpoint". Other postganglionic efferent neurons, such as those of the autonomic nervous system, have junctions that are usually called "neuroeffector junctions". Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finessed this issue by removing the phrase "or to non-neuronal cells". I'm pretty certain that the majority of neuroscientists would consider the neuromuscular junction to be a type of synapse, but there is no reason to argue about it, since the sentence does its job without that phrase. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "Although dolphins have values that approach the human level." Does the dolphin's EQ of 4.14 really approach that of humans? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Dolphins have values higher than those for any primates other than humans...". Looie496 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a general comment regarding the inline citations. I agree with RJHall; there are several paragraphs where the final sentence isn't referenced. Unlike Nikkimaria, I don't have a problem with the citation density per se. I am sure that Looie496 has ensured that all of the text can be justified from the reliable sources. However in several places, the source is not indicated. I could go through the article and place "citation needed" tags, but I'm not sure how constructive that would be. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tried to move all refs to the end of the range of material they support. If there is still material whose sourcing is unclear, cn tags would be helpful. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference placement looks fine now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Anatomy", subsection "Primates": "The other part of the brain that is greatly enlarged in primates is the prefrontal cortex, which carries out functions that include planning, working memory, motivation, attention, and executive control." This sentence is rather awkward. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten that paragraph. Does it work now? Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physiology": "Neurons are electrically active cells." Aren't all cells electrically active? Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. All cells are electrically charged, but most maintain a membrane potential that is either constant or else changes slowly. I'll see if I can come up with a wording that clarifies the distinction here. Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten the sentence as "The functions of the brain depend on the ability of neurons to transmit electrochemical signals to other cells, and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells." Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physiology", subsection "Neurotransmitters and receptors", paragraph 2: "The two neurotransmitters that are used most widely in the vertebrate brain are glutamate, which almost always exerts excitatory effects on target neurons, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which is almost always inhibitory." Is the disclaimer "almost always" really necessary? Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know the answer, and some sort of qualifier is indeed needed. There is an inhibitory subtype of glutamate receptor, and GABA can be excitatory during embryonic development. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Physiology", subsection "Metabolism": "The brain consumes up to twenty percent of the energy used by the human body, more than any other organ. Although the human brain represents only 2% of the body weight, it receives 15% of the cardiac output, 20% of total body oxygen consumption, and 25% of total body glucose utilization." This information is specific to the human brain. I expect that the energy use of non-human brains is much lower. Without the context of non-human brain metabolism details, I don't think that these human-centric stats should be in this article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that material in response to a request from reviewer RJH, below, so I really don't know what I should do here. Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I asked RJH about this; here is his response: "Hi Axl. Well yes I agree. What I requested was some information on the brain's energy usage, with the idea that it would show how that effects the evolutionary development of large brains. The nominator chose to use the human-specific information, but I think it could (and probably should) be modified to talk about any animal with a large brain (given suitable sources). Regards, RJH"
Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now rewritten this section almost entirely, to make it more complete and less human-centric. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good to me. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Functions": "To generate purposeful and unified action, the brain brings information from sense organs together at a central location, processes it to extract meaningful information from the raw data, combines the sensory information with information about the current needs of an animal and with memory of circumstances from the past, and generates motor response patterns that are suited to maximize the welfare of the animal." Can this long sentence be shortened/split? Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have broken it up into four shorter sentences -- tell me if it works better for you. Please feel free to edit it if you see any way of improving it. Looie496 (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I have made a couple of minor changes.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Functions", subsection "Motor control": "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by brainstem nuclei, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord." I don't think that's right. There also also other motor cranial nerves: facial, glossopharyngeal, vagus, hypoglossal. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Axl is right - none of the Cranial nerves arise from the spinal cord (apart from a bit of XI) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was a misreading of the source on my part. I've rechecked, and rewritten the sentence to correct the error. It now says, "Except for the muscles that control the eye, which are driven by nuclei in the midbrain, all the voluntary muscles in the body are directly innervated by motor neurons in the spinal cord and brainstem". Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Functions", subsection "Motivation", paragraph 1: "The motivational system works largely by a reward-punishment mechanism." Should this be an endash? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, but I'll take your word for it -- changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several historical comments in the body of the article. While these may be appropriately placed for an essay or a review article, I think that they would be better in the "History" section of this encyclopedic article.

  • From "Anatomy", subsection "Invertebrates", there is extended discussion around Sydney Brenner and Eric Kandel.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Information processing", much of the first two paragraphs should be in the "History" section.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Arousal", paragraph 3 mentions 1950s knowledge.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Homeostasis", Claude Bernard's milieu intérieur.
  • From "Functions", subsection "Learning and memory", includes historical information.
  • From "Research", paragraph 2, details of older 20th century techniques.

Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here I'm going to balk. These are areas where it seemed to me that a good understanding of the current state of knowledge requires knowing something about the past. If the historical information is simply removed from those sections, I don't think they will work as well for readers. I am open to suggestions about how to reframe those sections, but simply extracting the historical information doesn't seem viable. Looie496 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Research", paragraph 3: "Recordings of brain activity can be made using electrodes, either glued to the skull as in EEG studies, or implanted inside the brains of animals for extracellular recordings." In humans, EEG electrodes are affixed to the scalp, not the skull. (I don't know if the skull is used in animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, that was just a brain glitch on my part -- now changed to "scalp". Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good pun :-) Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the same paragraph: "It is also possible to study brain activity noninvasively in humans using functional imaging techniques such as MRI." In humans, EEG is almost always non-invasive. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the emphasis in that sentence didn't come through as I intended. I have rewritten the sentence as, "It is also possible to study brain activity using functional imaging techniques such as Functional magnetic resonance imaging—these techniques have mainly been used with human subjects, because they require a conscious subject to remain motionless for long periods of time, but they have the great advantage of being noninvasive." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 15:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have adjusted the syntax of the sentence. There is no reference at the end of the sentence; I wonder if it was lost in the wash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, but in any case I've now added a reference for it. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "History", paragraph 4: "Reflecting the new understanding, in 1942 Charles Sherrington visualized in somewhat breathless terms the workings of the brain waking from sleep." "Breathless terms"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in purple prose. I realize that phrase is slightly nonencyclopedic, and I'll remove it if you think it is preferable. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted that introductory phrase. I have left the quotation itself intact. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references to Principles of Neural Science and Principles of Neural Development are only chapter numbers, without page numbers. Why is this? (I can try to get hold of these books and dig out the page numbers if that would be helpful.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of those textbook references are in support of broad generalizations that are verifiable using any decent textbook on the topic, and in my view a reader who feels a need for more information is better served by reading the chapter than by looking for a specific sentence or paragraph that duplicates the information in the article. Looie496 (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of citations in Wikipedia is for verifiability rather than directing the reader to a source of extra information.
I now have a copy of Principles of Neural Science. The first instance of a "chapter reference" is from "Anatomy", subsection "Cellular structure", paragraph 3. I have added a page number citation to the first part of the paragraph. Ironically, the second part of the paragraph makes no mention of electrical synapses, despite this being one of the first points of the chapter. There is also information there that could be included in the "History" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following this message from Looie496, I have decided to withdraw from this FAC. It is clear that Looie496 and I have significant disagreements regarding layout, style and referencing, which will not be reconciled during this FAC. I have tried to make constructive comments, and I have made several edits to the article itself. I am aware that other editors already support the article in its current state, and I submit to the consensus.

As a final request, I would ask that Looie496 reviews my comment regarding motor neurons from the spinal cord; I believe that the article's statement is factually incorrect. I shall take no further part in this FAC. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would reconsider. I really appreciate the work you have put into this and have found your comments to be very valuable, and I have complied with most of your requests. I am reluctant to follow a couple of requests, and have tried to explain why, but I have not actually refused. I intend to fix the problem regarding motor neurons -- you're right that the current wording is incorrect, but replacing it with correct wording is nontrivial. I am also working on a rewrite of the Metabolism section, which is not easy for me because biochemistry is by no means my strongest area. Let me also note that at this time there are only two editors on record in support of promoting the article, which is not what I would call consensus, so your views are by no means irrelevant. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed and I think this article is FA worthy. There may be other issues to be identified, but the nominator has shown a willingness to address the remaining problems. Good work. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC) Comments—It's a good article and I enjoyed the read. I think with a little fine tuning it can be an FA. Here's a few observations:[reply]

  • As mentioned earlier, there is an issue with the placement of the sources. They should be located at the end of the text they reference. See "Perception", "Arousal", "Development", and so forth.
I have now done this as requested. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see frequent use of the spaced em-dash. These should all be unspaced em-dashes. See MOS:EMDASH.
This sort of thing is very frustrating. Whatever I do, people tell me I should do the other thing. I personally don't care one way or the other. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, well I think first and foremost it's good to be consistent. The article mixes the two forms; I'd just stick with the unspaced em-dash and point people to the MoS if there is an issue. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed all instances to unspaced em-dashes. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. RJH (talk)
  • What does the following statement have to do with the subject? Also, it's expressing an opinion, so it should be sourced.
    Many biologists dislike the term "invertebrate" (which includes all animals that are not vertebrates) because it is not a monophyletic category — that is, it does not describe a group of animals all derived from a common ancestral form.
That sentence is sourced, to a textbook that explains the problems with the word "invertebrate". I originally had the reference attached to the first sentence of the paragraph; somebody moved it to the last sentence. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, what does it have to do with the brain? RJH (talk)
Well, not much. There are three words that make biologists see red -- "primitive", "worm", and "invertebrate" -- and I have a sort of defensive reflex whenever I feel compelled to use one of them. But I've now removed it -- damn the torpedoes! Looie496 (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As an alternative, might I suggest making it a footnote? RJH (talk)
My personal view is that footnotes don't work very well with Wikipedia's referencing scheme, because the reader has no way of distinguishing a footnote reference from a source reference without looking at it. I am happy to leave it as is -- we can always revisit the issue if somebody complains. Looie496 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. RJH (talk)
  • "The brain of the octopus in particular is highly developed, comparable in complexity to the brains of some vertebrates." Isn't this true of cephalopods in general? (Cf. Cephalopod intelligence.)
I don't know for sure; I'll see if I can find out. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed that sentence -- I can't find a source that directly supports it, although there are many sources that seem to support it implicitly. I modified the previous sentence slightly as well. Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's regrettable. However, the current wording does seems to cover the topic fairly well and the Cephalopod intelligence article indicates that the topic of cephalopod intellectual capabilities remains controversial. Perhaps it's best then. Thanks. RJH (talk)
  • "Remarkably, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans." Why is this remarkable?
Well, remarkableness is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Many people find it remarkable that closely related genes are involved in shaping the brains of humans and fruit flies, whose last common ancestor was a wormlike thing that existed over 500 million years ago. Even so, the word can be dropped if you are unhappy with it. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A reason why I have a minor concern here is that the word implies there is additional information that is not being supplied to the reader. For example, does it mean the same as the following?
"Remarkably, despite having a nearly independent evolutionary lineage, many aspects of Drosophila neurogenetics have turned out to be relevant to humans."
RJH (talk)
I have replaced "remarkably" with "in spite of the large evolutionary distance between insects and mammals..." Will that work? Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Thank you. RJH (talk)
  • "and examined in hundreds of experiments" It is unclear how this is connected with the remainder of the sentence. Is it missing an "and [it has been] examined"?
Changed as suggested. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the Homeostasis section mention the brain's role in hibernation?
My knowledge of that is extremely sketchy. What do you think it should say? Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that hybernation provides the brain protection from cold temperatures and low oxygen flow, so some mention might be relevant. Also, it contrasts with the discussion regarding sleep, since the mechanisms and effects upon the brain differ. RJH (talk)
I am open to suggestions, but I don't see this as essential (I'm not even sure hibernation should be thought of homeostasis), and I don't know anything to say about it. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. RJH (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no mention of energy use in the brain or heat regulation.
As the note at the top of the article indicates, that topic is covered in the human brain article -- although not as thoroughly as could be wished. It is really only in humans that the brain is a large enough fraction of the body for that to matter, as far as I know. This is not an area where I have great expertise, though, so there might be literature I'm not aware of. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But all brains use energy and I think it's at least worth mentioning in terms of a cost factor for possessing a large brain. Also, does it need to be explained how energy is transported across the blood-brain barrier? RJH (talk)
I have moved the Metabolism section back into this article from the human brain article, simplifying it a bit and placing it in the Physiology section. Will that work for you? Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. RJH (talk)
Followup: as I said above to Axl, this section has now been rewritten. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, RJH (talk) 21:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update As of now I have responded to every issue that has been raised, and await further comments. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A DAB. Would have fixed it myself but I don't know which link is correct. I would guess cellular differentiation? Albacore (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I was aware of that, and left it as it was because I thought that none of the dab links was appropriate. But looking again, I see that the cellular differentiation article actually does discuss induction briefly. There really ought to be a separate article on it, because it is quite an important process, but I suppose resolving as you suggest is the right thing to do for now, so I've made that change. Looie496 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Anthonyhcole

  • "The autonomic nervous system affects heart rate, digestion, respiration rate, salivation, perspiration, urination, and sexual arousal ..." Should you make it clear this isn't an exhaustive list of ANS functions?
I have added "and several other processes". Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Brain#Functions: "(The brain) then processes this raw data to extract meaning." Can meaning be applied to insect and arachnid cognition? I don't know the answer, and can't access the source.
Yeah, that was too loosely worded. I've rephrased it as "It then processes this raw data to extract information about the structure of the environment". Still a bit loose, but it's hard to be completely precise without resorting to jargon or formulations so complicated most readers won't be able to understand them. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentstentative support (but fix nerve error) (on comprehensiveness and prose grounds) - I read through a swathe of this article the other day and got distracted. I must say it is pretty impressive. I'll continue and jot notes below: I can't see any deal-breakers outstanding. I think the article is over the line, and straddles clear English vs scientific accuracy well. It is large and will spot check some sources and prose laterCasliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Note on topic coverage I'm not sure about - I recognise its utility but find the fact that it looks the same as the body of text disconcerting as it is somewhat meta. I can see some duplication of it with the italicised segment at the top of the page. This is a placeholder, not a deal-breaker per se as I cannot think of an improvement just yet.
I am totally sympathetic to that attitude. I think it's essential to get that information across to the reader somehow, but I am completely open to doing it in a different way if a different way is preferred. Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That section disconcerts me too. Would it be better to make it an opening paragraph for the "See also" section of the page? Doing so seems logical to me, but I've never seen paragraph text in "See also" sections before. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and their ability to integrate electrochemical signals received from other cells - the verb "integrate" strikes me as a bit nebulous here. I'm thinking "respond to" is better, and tossing up whether chucking in the adverb "appropriately" is needed too.
Revised as suggested -- it does seem a bit clearer that way. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Just noted motor neuron debate above - will look into this later. Gotta run as real life beckons... yes needs fixing - cranial nerves don't arise from SC (except a bit of one or two of 'em). ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now rewritten, see comment above. Looie496 (talk) 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the images in this article haven't been reviewed yet, and there's quite a few of them. Ucucha (talk) 18:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once an image has been released under a certain license, the license cannot be revoked. I think it would be possible to find an alternative image, but I'm not sure we need to. Looie496 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am a neophyte on images anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have a reasonably solid understanding of copyright law, but not such a solid grasp of Wikipedia's policies regarding image use, so I do need checking up on. Looie496 (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spent a lot of time learning about Wikipedia's image policies, and my understanding is that Looie is correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status update At this point I believe I have responded to all issues that have been raised, although some reviewers have not yet verified that the responses are adequate. RJHall, Anthonyhcole, and Casliber have supported promotion; Axl is uncomfortable with some aspects but not explicitly opposed. There has not been a complete image review, however most of the images were present during FA3 and were deemed acceptable then. Looie496 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media Review A few things:
- Please go through the images and make sure that all of them have a Template:Information template in them, with everything that needs to be there, in there.
I am not aware of any FAC guideline that says it is my responsibility to do that. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one, however some of the images have the information strewn all over the place, making it rather hard to find it all. It's more of a common courtesy thing, like alt texts. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just a courtesy I would be happy to do it. But the fact is that my knowledge of Wikipedia's image policies is limited, and my approach is basically to assume that things from Commons are usable unless somebody tells me that they aren't. So this is asking me for something that I really don't know how to do. I'll take responsibility for images that I have uploaded myself (which are either entirely my own work or derived from things that I know are licensed appropriately), but I don't want to be responsible for validating things that other people have uploaded. Looie496 (talk) 06:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Horizontal sections of fetal brain.jpg is extremely.. err.. sketchy. Without knowing anything about the user, my first inclination is to call the own work claim bogus. He says it comes from http://www.anatomyumftm.com. I'm kinda queesy so I didn't verify if that's true or not, but the website itself dosen't have a copyright release of any kind. In the absence of that, of an OTRS ticket, or even of a statement saying that Anatomist90 is connected to the website, the image has to go. I've alerted a Commons admin via the IRC, so that image might disappear soon anyways.
I'm not responsible for putting that image there, and even if the permission was somehow okay, it doesn't belong where it was placed or really anywhere in the article. I have removed it. Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tursiops truncatus brain size modified.JPG is based off of a museum exhibit. Not sure about what that does for copyright status. Is the exhibit copyrighted by the museum? If so, this is tainted fruit, so to speak.
I have removed the image, with some regret, as it is extremely difficult to find usable images for that topic. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:6 week embryo brain.jpg also makes me uncomfortable. Where did the uploader get his information? It's not that I doubt the accuracy, just that it... well... dosen't feel right. Feel free to ignore this one.
The original uploader has created a lot of images like this one, using Inkscape (an SVG image editor). Of course there is never any way of knowing for certain, but I see no actual evidence that the claim of self-creation is wrong -- I've created numerous line drawings of this sort myself. Looie496 (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Sorry, but it looks like you've got a bit more cleanup to do. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is remarkable work. I've just read the article and found almost nothing I could even quibble with. The only comment I can offer is that a navigation template at the end that guided the reader to specific brain-related topics would be very helpful. My support is that of a layperson; I have no knowledge of neuroscience beyond what can be gained from reading science articles in magazines such as Scientific American. I also have not checked the sources or images. With those caveats, I believe this is worthy of FA status. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice that a comparison is made to Jell-O. Basically no-one outside North America (I'm not sure about Canada) will know; I understand the source probably does. However, Jell-O could describe a number of dessert products. Can we say that the source meant a gelatin dessert? Perhaps we should say that instead? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would it work to just say gelatin? Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gelatin itself is rather different. Is there a separate comparison in the source? Or perhaps merely link Jell-O to "Gelatin dessert" instead. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've simply removed that comparison. We've gone around on this about half-a-dozen times, and there doesn't seem to be any way to make people happy. Looie496 (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a spotcheck of the sources? Ucucha (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposeable Spotcheck concerns (10/145 cites) I am a historian, not a neurobiological anatomist. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checked: fn 4; 13; 23; 33; 44; 53; 64; 73; 83; 94.
    • I don't see how fn44 adequately supports its citation with 400 pages of pathology, when one sentence of normal function is required to be sourced appropriately.
    • I don't see how fn53 adequately supports the assertion that mammal brains are different to other vertebrates, etc. It supports a discussion on primate / non-primates.
    • fn64 is a 400 page book allegedly supporting two sentences. Try pp. 327; 387ff §"Drug abuse" Also try a bit of courtesy to your readers. 400pg over two major assertions...
    • fn73 misrepresents its source Wikipedia: "The need to limit body weight in order, for example, to fly, has apparently led to selection for a reduction of brain size in some species, such as bats." Safi2005 at abstract: "Relative to the ancestral state, brain size in bats has been reduced in fast flyers, while it has increased in manoeuvrable flyers adapted to flight in complex habitats. This study emphasizes that brain reduction and enlargement are equally important, and they should both be considered when investigating brain size evolution."

-- [Above comments by Fifelfoo (talk)]; note added by Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) to separate the comments above from the response.]

I agree with Fifelfoo that it would be nice to have some of these be more specific, but I would hate to see the article fail promotion for this reason, since it seems likely that the information really is embedded in those sources. As I'm neither an editor of the article nor knowledgeable about the field I don't want to modify the citations myself, but I will see if I can find alternative sourcing for these.
  • fn44: Could be sourced to page 98 of Gordon, E. (2000). Integrative Neuroscience: Bringing Together Biological, Psychological and Clinical Models of the Human Brain. CRC Press. ISBN 9789058230553. This would cover everything except the comment that the hypothalamus regulates sleep and wake cycles, which would be partly covered by p. 104 of the same source, and could also be sourced to page 96 of Stickgold, R,; Walker, P. (2009). The Neuroscience of Sleep. Academic Press. ISBN 9780123750730.
  • fn53: Could be sourced to p. 119 of Finlay, B.L.; Innocenti, G.M.; Scheich, H. (1991). The Neocortex: Ontogeny and Phylogeny. Springer. ISBN 9780306438080.
  • fn64: Fifelfoo gives the reduced form of the reference that would work in this case.
  • fn73: There are numerous references to selection for reduced brain size; it's easy to source the statement that brains are metabolically expensive. However, everything I found on bat metabolism talks more about selection via complexity of environment, not for flight: e.g. frugivorous bats have larger brains than folivorous bats. It would be possible to generally source the statement that selection for a larger brain size involves more metabolic expense and hence must have some compensating positive selection pressure, but I couldn't find support for the statement as given, and I think it might be best to change it.
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mike Christie, I sympathise. This is a top order article in anatomy. The rate of spotcheck problems (4 problems from 10 sources spotchecked) indicates that there are problems throughout, probably about 56 problems. While your suggested corrections excellently cover the four problems I located, one of the editors carrying this nomination (hopefully one with access to the major texts unavailable electronically) really needs to revisit every citation and double check against the standards indicated above. 400 page passim. citations aren't appropriate, and indicate sloppy verification. I appreciate that many of the statements are supported by broad, appropriate encyclopaedic synthesis, and that some passim citations may be required at the level of the relevant chapter, see my 387ff §"Drug abuse" suggestion above. I'm strongly concerned about the Bat example: it indicates that the person making that citation didn't adequately compare even the abstract to the article. I don't want to see this shot down, but the nominating editors have previously been warned about this on the 10th and 14th of October, above. Given that Nikkimaria was quite specific about these defects very early on, I was a little disappointed when spotchecking. I understand that the primarily responsible editor has been requesting spotchecks for some time, so as long as the delegates are satisfied, I don't mind waiting. From my perspective, this seems like the only thing holding up the article. But it is a firm hold or fail issue as it goes to verifiability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "It is located in the head, usually close to primary sensory apparatus such as vision, hearing, balance, taste and smell." 'Apparatuses' is the more common plural form, but regardless, vision, hearing, balance, taste, and smell are not sensory apparatuses, they are senses. This sentence needs to be rewritten. Kaldari (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's sort of funny how difficult it is to say something that is basically so simple -- I've revised it to "usually close to primary sensory organs for senses such as vision, hearing, balance, taste and smell." Does that work? Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:59, 12 December 2011 [39].


Mark Satin[edit]

Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this biography for featured article status because I believe it now, finally and truly, meets all the FA criteria (it recently received "B-class" ratings from the Biography and Journalism projects). I first nominated it for FA status three months ago (August 11), and after some initial resistance on my part, learned to take advantage of some wonderfully detailed critiques. Last month I put it through a productive peer review, and have spent much of my spare time since then getting it ready for this moment, as you'll see if you click on its "History" page.

One reason I've stuck with it is I feel it covers underreported ground. Its subject played major roles in three noteworthy but unconventionaal political movements over five decades: Vietnam War draft dodging in the 1960s, New Age politics in the 1970s–80s, and radical centrism in the 1990s–2000s.

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

So, enjoy. - Babel41 (talk) 20:24, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nice work since last time! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, and for these very useful comments! - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspaper sources
Done: Because you want me, as indicated below, to use the formal name for The New York Times (i.e., to insert the "The"), I decided to use the formal name for all 13 newspapers I've referenced. That left four without locations in their titles, and for those I placed the nane of the relevant city or region in parenthesis immediately after the papers' names every time I mentioned them in the "References" section - thus Daily Herald (suburban Chicago), The Globe and Mail (Toronto), National Post (Toronto), and The Province (Vancouver).
In order to be more thoroughly consistent, I then made sure I was using the formal names for all magazines and organizations as well. I had to change a couple - e.g., The Washington Monthly, not Washington Monthly. I saw no need to identify the home offices of of the magazines or organizations, though. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 12: is this the correct formatting wrt publisher?
Done: Your suspicion was well-founded, the APSA puts a colon after the PS (on the copyright page and on its website). So I changed it accordingly. APSA does not use a colon in the cover design, and the title of Wikipedia's page on the magazine does not use a colon either, though the first sentence of Wikipedia's article does include the colon. APSA does use the ampersand. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 37: can you explain how this source is compliant with WP:SCHOLARSHIP, specifically the point about theses?
Done: Roth's master's thesis on the draft dodgers is so good - so much better researched and less ego-driven than most of the books I've read on the subject - that after a while I stopped thinking of it as a thesis, ansd stopped thinking about MOS. Sorry!
I have now removed six of the seven references to Roth (and substituted other sources or material where necessary). The last reference, at the end of the Manual sub-section, simply uses Roth as an example of contemporary graduate-student interest in the Manual, so I assume he can remain there. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New York Times, not New York Times
Done: Have now changed this every time it's come up in the text and references. Plus, this comment led to a substantial change in how I've cited newspapers and other periodicals; see first point above. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 67 and similar: not sure the "newspaper (Canada)" is needed
Re: "newspaper". Done: In my "References" section, I stated whether periodicals were newspapers, magazines, or journals whenever it was not obvious from the information given. Your comment plus my gradual immersion in Wikipediana makes me realize this is unneccesary (and in some close cases probably POV). So I have eliminated all 22 instances of this, including the one you cite. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "(Canada)". Done: This is embarrassing: Thanks to your comment, I see that I tried to identify countries for all publications from outside the U.S. And I like to think of myself as a global citizen! Sad. I have now eliminated all country references. (Anyway, nearly all the publications and publishers I cite have Wikipedia pages.) - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 77: page(s)?
Done: My error. I added pages (actually, chapter numbers) to Ferguson, and did another page check for all my references. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 80 and others: use dashes for page ranges
Done: Thanks. I re-checked every dash, and found two more hyphens ... they're dashes now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 90 and similar: should note language rather than country
Done: There were two instances of this. I took out the countries and added the words, "____ language publication." - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how magazine issues covering multiple months are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I decided on closed en-dashes, and made sure they're between all months (and seasons) now. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your great help. - Babel41 (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Babel, avoid {{done}} and other templates on a FAC page. It slows down the loading time when all the FACs are pulled up on the same page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed tick marks, pls see WP:FAC instructions, and pls thread responses correctly to minimize size of the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, SandyGeorgia and Dank. I have cut back the threads and bolded the Dones. - Babel41 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 23:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Later.) Nikkimaria, - Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've copyedited this a couple of times. It's different, but all good biographies are different, and they're a welcome addition at FAC, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going through this a third time, and making a few minor edits. WT:FAC#Mark_Satin may be of interest.
  • I'm not sure what "inductive" means in context. - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have Satin referring to Americans alternately as "we" or "they"; try to standardize this.
  • Done. Still supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualified support on prose. Jim's comments are right on the money, I think ... there are a number of places where the article doesn't mesh with the "house style", the tone we look for at FAC, although I feel that much of it is strong writing nonetheless. I may be biased on this one; I'm happy for others to make the call. - Dank (push to talk) 17:47, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dank, - Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noleander comments - I spent some time reading it, and I'm having a hard time finding any suggestions for improvement. Great article!

  • Sentence "He was not even against the draft, telling reporters he would support it for a defensive army ..." could be better. "Even" sounds too informal; and the sentence seems at odds with the rest of the article. Maybe a better wording would be "He was not entirely opposed to the draft, explaining that he would conditionally support it for ..."
  • External links: the link for "New World Alliance and New Options Correspondence Files, 1977–1992" goes to a search page result. Better would be for the link to go the actual page (after clicking on the link in the search results).
  • Tense: The tense seems to shift back and forth between present and past. Examples: "Satin presents..", "Satin devotes ..", "he moved..", "He gave a .." "proposal drew significant...". Since he is still alive, there is some justification for present tense. But my personal preference would be to be consistent throughout the article: primarily past tense, unless there is a compelling reason for present tense (e.g. stating his current opinions).
    • Please see WP:TENSE ... that's not in the Manual of Style, but it's linked from those pages, including WP:WAF. - Dank (push to talk) 16:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for referring me to WP:TENSE ... I was not aware of that essay. It suggests that sentences about works of fiction should use present tense, but sentences about history should use past tense. The Mark Satin material strikes me as more of the latter. Is there some WP guideline on biographies, which discusses tense? In any case, my comment is not a big deal: I'm just pointing out that switching tenses back and forth struck me as peculiar. --Noleander (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I found Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Tense which says that bios of living persons should be in present tense, but bios of deceased persons in past tense. Sounds good to me. --Noleander (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 15:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! - Dank (push to talk) 20:48, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noleander, - Thanks for your kind words, and for your very useful comments. Please see my note at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: This looks an interesting and comprehensive article. I note that it has been through FAC before, and more recently underwent an extensive peer review. However, in reading through the first few sections I identified a number of issues which I think require further attention:-

Lead

The lead's function is that of a broad outline summary of the main article, and at present I think there is too much detail, for example in the following extract: "Satin wrote the book New Age Politics, published by Dell in 1979. Despite what some see as its off-putting title, New Age Politics is widely recognized as the first, most ambitious, or most adequate attempt to construct an original political ideology out of the social movements of the post-Vietnam era. It identifies an emergent "third force" in North America pursuing such goals as simple living, decentralism, and global responsibility." For the purposes of the lead I would reduce this to: "Satin wrote New Age Politics, in which he identifies an emergent "third force" in North America, pursuing such goals as simple living, decentralism, and global responsibility." Likewise in the third paragraph, there is scope for summarisation.

Early years
  • Beware POVish phrasing. e.g. "Satin appeared to be a model citizen" and "But another side surfaced..."
  • We need a clearer picture of Satin's undergraduate career. He drops out of the University of Illinois, and is then told to leave Midwestern State University (how did he get to be there?), before we find him dropping out of State University of New York at Binghamton – again with no information as to how he came to be there. Apart from these frequent shifts, what was he supposedly studying at these places – surely that must be on record somewhere?
  • The third paragraph reads somewhat mawkishly. This is not appropriate material for an encyclopedia, though maybe for the Ladies' Home Journal
Toronto Anti-Draft Programme
  • "He added that he was "tired of" talking to the press". I don't know what this adds to the article, or why "tired of" requires quotes
  • "valorizing"? Is there a verb "to valorize"? (If there is, there shouldn't be)
  • Correcting myself! There is a verb "to valorize", but it means something completely different: "to fix and maintain an artificial price for a commodity by government action". So the word needs changing here. Brianboulton (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Instead of emphasizing the difficulties of emigration, Satin emphasized..." Repetition
  • Consecutive sentences beginning "Instead of..."
  • Over-complex sentences, e.g.: "Instead of refusing to "baby sit" Americans after they arrived, Satin made post-emigration assistance a top priority – the office soon sported comfortable furniture, a hot plate, and free food,[25] and within a few months, 200 Torontonians had opened their homes to war resisters and a job-finding service had been established". Apart from two "ands", the construction is made awkward by the use of the ndash in mid-sentence.
  • Some of the phrasing is overelaborate, e.g. "exuding indifference"
  • "He was 21 years old" at the end of the subsection looks gratuitous; what purpose is this information serving?
Manual for Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada
  • There is a tendency towards the overuse of quotation marks, especially for unremarkable terms like "useful", "detailed advice", "warm welcome", "ecourage" etc. These words or terms aren't worth putting in quotes, which should be reserved for rather more striking comments.
  • "re-envision"? Is that the word used in the source? If so, I think that is a case for using a direct quote, not just of this rather dubious word but of the context in which the source uses it.
  • What is "House of Anansi"? Publishers?

That is all I have time for at present. I will try to add comments on the rest, but it looks to me as though a little more work is necessary before this article is ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree with some of that, but I have to pick my battles ... I've got my hands full copyediting historical narratives, and much of this article isn't a historical narrative. Hopefully we'll get a bunch of reviews, and I'll be happy to accept the consensus. - Dank (push to talk) 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to have some response from the nominator. But if the article is still in such a state of flux, it probably has no business being here at FAC. It's not up to "a bunch of reviews" to lick the article into shape. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the nominator (and principal author): I appreciate your comments about my article, and the constructive spirit behind them. They will not go unattended! Please see my note (to you and others) at the end of Jim's comments below. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments from Jim You've put a good deal of work into this, but I feel there are still some issues with the text — I know nothing about the content. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the lead is too detailed, book publishers, synopses etc
  • In high school, Satin appeared to be a model citizen – for example, he wrote a regular column on teenage affairs for the Moorhead newspaper.[9] But another side surfaced within months of his leaving for university.[22] — It's not my experience that people who write to newspapers are "model citizens"; quite the opposite often. The whole of the quoted section feels a bit popular biography rather than encyclopaedic
  • for refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the United States Constitution. — As a Brit, I'd welcome a link or explanation here. Is this a federal requirement, Texas, only or a maverick university? Do non-Americans take the oath too?
  • trimester — which means?
  • The night Satin arrived in Canada, he struggled to hold back tears — More Mills & Boon than encyclopaedia
  • valorizing — My dictionary says it's to do with stabilizing prices, ao I can't see what it means here. In any case, such an obscure word is best avoided
  • Throughout the article instead of is overused
  • Androgynous — needs link
  • Biblical Christians — I thought all Christians were biblical? If this means fundamentalist or literalist, perhaps a gloss or link, similarly if it's a campaigning group
  • Among Biblical Christians... I struggled with the whole of the para, particularly as the unlinked authors aren't given a nationality. Are we just talking about adverse views in the US? If so, that should be made clear. Was there no criticism from eg Sweden or Germany — it doesn't sound like the sort of book to be accepted uncritically in any country.
  • woundedness — not in my dictionary, best to avoid neologisms or obscure words
Dear Nikkimaria, Dank, Noleander, Brianbouton, and Jim: Thank you for your many thoughtful comments above.
It is clear, from reading them all together, that my article cannot be "patched up" by making a couple of individual changes here and there. Rather, the whole article needs to be adjusted to reflect what Dank refers to above as Wikipedia's "house style," as exemplified by all your comments and the sensibility behind them.
I am more than willing to do that, and I feel capable of doing it. However, it will take me longer than the couple of days I have left on the FAC page, and I probably (according to one friend, certainly!) will need to get some psychic distance on the article first. Therefore, I would like to withdraw my article from FAC consideration at this time, and re-submit it to you at a later date. I will adopt the changes you suggested, and if I can't go along with any of them I will explain why in my introduction to the FA nomination. I hope you will all choose to revisit my FA submission at that time. I will give each of you a heads-up. - Babel41 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [40].

Hip-hop dance[edit]

Nominator(s): Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article because I feel that it meets the FA criteria and that it gives a thorough overview of an urban dance style that has had a big commercial impact not just in the U.S. but also on an international level. I'm actually surprised at myself for nominating this article for FA because when I first started editing it, that was not my intention. At the time I began I just wanted it to be accurate. Last year, an editor translated the article to Portugese and it received FA status on the Portugese language Wikipedia. Earlier this year a large portion of it was reprinted in a book and the publishers correctly attributed Wikipedia for it (see talk page). Last month I found another book that copied a small portion of the article almost verbatim without mentioning Wikipedia or creative commons at all. I do feel this article meets the criteria and for this reason added to the Portugese FA and the two publications (the second book being the catalyst), I felt it was time to take this article to FAC. I do not think any details have been left out but please note that this article has been split twice into History of hip-hop dance and Hip-hop theater. As a reviewer if you feel the article is lacking in either area be advised these topics needed to be split off in order to keep the Hip-hop dance article from becoming too big. // Gbern3 (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - thank you for your work on this article, but unfortunately I don't agree that it currently meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • Given the length of the article, the lead should be at minimum 3 paragraphs, more likely 4
    • Working on it... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences of the current lead suggest potential OR and neutrality problems
    • May I ask why. I have a section in the article for all that is mentioned in these sentences. "To some, hip-hop dance may only be a form of entertainment or a hobby (entertainment and dance crews sections). To others it is a lifestyle: a way to be active in physical fitness (fitness section) or competitive dance (international competitions section) and a way to make a living by dancing professionally (dance industry section). Further down you gave me feedback about the flow. This sentence flows (well, transitions would be a better word) into the rest of the article. If you insist, I'll remove it. I'm only asking because I want to understand why it's OR/NPOV. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's the tone of these sentences that bothers me, not that they're unsourced or irrelevant. The tone used here is very journalistic, whereas we would prefer a neutral and encyclopedic tone. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Internationally, hip-hop dance has a particularly strong influence in France, South Korea, and United Kingdom." - aside from the grammar and overlinking problems here, you've not yet mentioned the US
    • Removed the extra comma. The paragraph immediately preceding the one you quoted from talks about the U.S. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still a grammar problem - should be the United Kingdom. However, the main issue here is globalization - en.wiki is an international encyclopedia, so when you say "internationally" as meaning countries outside the US, that's assuming a US-centric viewpoint, which not all readers will have. Furthermore, though it's implied, the preceding paragraph doesn't mention what country is being discussed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed. Can't believe I missed "the". //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unlike toprock, uprock was not performed to break beats" - but you have the emergence of toprock preceding the invention of break beats?
    • I can definitely see how this could be confusing. Toprock at that point was still elaborations on the "Good Foot" dance but that isn't clear in the paragraph. Changed/Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS issues - overlinking, dash/hyphen problems, etc
    • Removed several wikilinks. Not sure what to do about dash/hyphens. Can you provide a specific example of where these are used improperly? Another editor fixed the dash/hyphen problems. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still problems here. For example, in International competitions (and there's that word "international" again), you link the UK but not London - if anything, should be the reverse. A couple points down, you mention a "Dutch based international breaking competition" - should be "Dutch-based". Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why it's bad to use the word "international" for this section when five different countries (including the U.S.) are discussed? Of the 11 competitions listed four of them are based in the U.S., two are held in France, two in the U.K., one in the Netherlands, one in Korea, and another that changes countries every year. In addition, the participants at these competitions come from several different countries not just the host nation. This is why I didn't put Vibe Dance Competition in this section. It's only held in the U.S. and only crews and dance teams from the U.S. compete. That is not international. I don't get why I shouldn't call this section international competitions when it's about international competitions. It's a direct description of what the section is about and it goes along with the globalization view that you (constructively) criticized me about not having earlier. I don't get it. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I got it right this time when it comes to the wikilinks. I went to WP:MOSLINK#Overlinking and underlinking and found out why this article had problems. I don't know why I didn't read this before. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV/informal phrasings - for example, "it was the Latinos (specifically Puerto Ricans)[4] that kept the momentum of breaking alive". Maintain a neutral and encyclopedic tone at all times
    • ? Is this really POV? I have a sources for this. This is actually true. How can it be POV if it's supported with citations? It's the same as saying African Americans created breaking, locking, and popping. I thought it would be appropriate to give credit where credit is due. I rephrased it slightly and took out the word "specifically". I hope this is better. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, it's the tone here, not the sourcing, that is at issue - specifically, "kept the momentum of breaking alive". Like the sentences in the lead, this phrasing is journalistic, almost editorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is in need of a thorough copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow
    • Working on it. I wanted to get this copy-edited before submitting it for featured article but as you may already know there is a huge backlog so I didn't. Instead I actually paid a professional to do it via smarthinking.com. I got the mark-up back today and will incorporate the changes he made into the article. He mentioned comma splices and flow but didn't say anything about dash/hyphen problems which is why I am asking for feedback. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I really don't mean to be discouraging here, but...maybe you should ask for your money back? There are still considerable problems. I've copyedited one section as an example. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... Is it really that bad? I see a few improvements like how you changed the sentence about Toni Basil winning an award from the passive voice but it looks like you replaced a lot of what I had with synonyms (consistently vs. frequently, brief vs. quick, distinguish vs. identify, at the same time vs. simultaneously). Why is one word better than the other when they mean the same thing? I saw the change from "other than" to "in addition to" which I thought was a good catch considering they can have different meanings but at the end of the day the sentence as a whole has the same meaning: members of The Lockers who are not Don Campbell. Then there was "a dancer" vs. "dancers". Why is the plural better? Are these really ce problems? It looks like preference. So I went to the wikipedia article on Common English usage misconceptions#Grammar to figure out why I don't understand some of your changes but instead I found out there's nothing wrong with using the passive voice (fourth bullet point). I do appreciate you providing an example but I don't understand why the ce in this article is so bad based on your example. The best I can do at this point is resubmit the article to the copy-editor I had at smarthinking.com with your mark-ups highlighted and wait for feedback. He has a degree in this stuff. To answer your hidden question, yes, "locker" is an appropriate term to use for a dancer who performs locking. Other examples: popper for a dancer who does popping, breaker/b-boy/b-girl for a dancer who does breaking, krumper for a dancer who does krumping, etc. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I got the second mark-up back from smarthinking.com as well as an additional mark-up from a separate company I found. I started implementing the ce changes yesterday and will continue to do so until complete. Hopefully these revisions are better. I will update this page when I'm done making all the changes. //Gbern3 (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazines and newspapers should be italicized
    • ?? They are. The publications I mention are LA Weekly, Dance magazine, the Bronx Journal, and Dance Spirit magazine. They're all italicized. Did I miss one? Found them. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done consistently - for example, Las Vegas Sun. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay. I thought you were referring to publications in the body of the article. It's fixed now and I went through all the refs three times to make sure they were consistent so hopefully I didn't miss any. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need wiktionary links for common terms like "illusory"
  • "Being a part of a crew was the only way to learn when these styles began because they were not taught in studios. Forming and participating in a dance crew is how you practiced, improved, made friends, and built relationships. In the beginning, crews were neighborhood-based and would engage in battles in their respective cities. Today, crews can battle in organized competitions with other crews from around the country and around the world." - source?
  • "Crews still form based on friendships and neighborhoods. They also form for other reasons such as theme, gender, ethnicity, and dance style. Crews are not exclusive. It is common for street dancers to be involved in more than one crew" - source? Check for other unsourced statements
    • Hmmm, I guess I missed those. Will look for a source and update this page when I find one. Done, sort'of. I gave examples. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use ""pp." and endashes for ranges
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? this? Check for other potentially problematic sources
  • When I try to access [www.electricboogaloos.com/knowledge.html this site], my security software informs me that it is a known attack site
    • Well that's not good. I don't know how that happened. I also receive this message when I go to the website but I did not when I archived the page last year. I use Firefox and according to Firefox this activity has happened in the past 90 days so I guess this is recent. Anyhow, I removed it. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't assume an American-only audience, or one familiar with the topic. Be accessible to all readers as much as possible.
    • My copy-editor gave me specific feedback in the article about this bullet point so I will incorporate his changes and update this page when complete. Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not done, gave you a few examples above. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The examples have been addressed. However, I will revisit this point after I receive the second mark-up from smarthinking.com //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid WP:PRIMARY and self-published sources where possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • ? Can you please be more specific? I think of birth certificates, death records, deed records, and marriage licenses as primary sources. I don't use any of those in the article. Which ones are you referring to? //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, primary refers to sources "written by people who are directly involved" that "an insider's view" - for example, citing a competition's website for information on its history. Obviously this isn't always a problem (the example I give, for instance, is fine), but you a) need to be careful in how you use such sources, and b) prefer independent sources wherever possible. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure what to do with this feedback considering you said there's nothing wrong with the way I use primary sources here. I can't tell from your response what is actually incorrect. So I went to WP:PSTS and based on the primary sources bullet point there's still nothing wrong with the way I use these sources. Done (I think?). //Gbern3 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be a while before someone would comment on the article considering the length so thank you for reading it and leaving feedback. I wasn't expecting a reply just two days after I nominated it. I guess I'm use to the wait time at peer review. Thank you for being patient too as far as waiting on me to respond. I was celebrating Thanksgiving so I did not respond to your comments as quickly as I normally would. Once I implement the changes that my copy-editor provided on the mark-up he sent back to me, I will strike through those comments so that you know they are done. // Gbern3 (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the excess bolding for readability. Please sign your comments, and also, don't strike reviewer comments (see WP:FAC instructions). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
? I didn't strike my reviewer's comments. Confused. I actually thought making my comments bold helped with readability because it distinguished my comments from Nikkimaria's. I guess not though. I didn't know I was suppose to sign each bullet point; I thought one signature at the end would be sufficient so my apologies on that one. I will go back and fix this... Done. //Gbern3 (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is very jumbled and rather poorly written, with many basic errors such as the grocer's apostrophe in "Puerto Ricans maintained it's development when it was considered a passing fad in the late '70s". And what on Earth does this word salad mean? "Other than San Francisco bay area pride, turfing maintained its endurance due to local turf dance competitions and local youth programs that promote turfing as a form of physical activity." Malleus Fatuorum 04:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think the major issue is the page needs some copyediting to get it up to encyclopedic standard, as there are a lot of wording issues. Some other specific concerns:

  • "It would be historically inaccurate to say that the funk styles have always been considered hip-hop." - this would need a cite
    • This sentence is an introduction to the rest of the paragraph—a topic sentence. The sentences that immediately follow this statement, one of which you quoted directly below, prove this sentence to be true. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Due to the amount of attention locking and popping were receiving, the media brought these styles under the "breakdance" label causing confusion about their origin.[17][18]" - "Media" is a very nonspecific term, and more analysis on this point, I think, is necessary to explain what kind of media and how the confusion took place and impacted things.
    • This is a good observation. I will try to look into this and see what I can find out. I'm not sure I'll be able to deliver anything considering the citations I used for those statements came from books which also used the general term "media" rather than a specific publication. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were created on the west coast independent from breaking and came out of the funk cultural movement rather than from the hip-hop cultural movement." - this also needs a cite,
    • This sentence has already been proven true. Similar to the first sentence, this sentence closes that paragraph. It was proved true earlier in the section with this statement --> "The funk styles refers to several street dance styles created in California in the 1970s that were danced to funk music.[14]". //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is primarily written in US perspective, though the international competition section is helpful, but I fear it might be better suited for a list.
    • ?? It's already in a bulleted list. Why move it (<--I honestly don't mean that in a rude way)? //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree it's a bit jumbled. I think you've got some of the basics down, but I'd try to reorganize it a little. I hate to suggest this given the article's history, but it could use another split so "Impact" isn't so prominent, and there's a more even coverage of history, technique and impact. —Ed!(talk) 19:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You want me to split the International Competitions section off to a separate page to be a stand-alone list and then split off the Impact section to a separate article?? I realize you clearly have much more experience than me on FAC but doing that would make this article immediately fail criterion 1b. Furthermore, there is already another article about the history of hip-hop dance so making the history section larger in this one would be counterproductive to splitting off the history part of the article in the first place (I think, but I've been wrong before). I appreciate your comments because I believe you are trying to be helpful. However, everything in me says this is not a good idea. //Gbern3 (talk) 20:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [41].

Tetrabiblos[edit]

Nominator(s): -- Zac Δ talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article because it provides a comprehensive and well-researched report of a famous book by a notable name in the history of science. The book has held a position of great influence historically and although its subject matter is quite complex, it continues to be of interest to many scholars. Astrologers still refer to it, and historians of the classical culture need to be aware of its arguments, the extent of its impact, and the principles that extended into the other 'liberal sciences' of that era. The creation of this article ranked high on the ‘to-do’ list of a number of wiki:projects for several years, but it wasn’t created until September this year. It has had a lot of time and effort invested into it over the last 3 months to ensure it is clear, comprehensive and based on the best available sources. I believe it now meets the criteria necessary to achieve FA status. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. If possible I'd like to get a reviewer more familiar with the topic to take a look at sourcing, but here are some preliminary comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In this topic his logical arrangement of complex considerations gives sufficient clarity for an astrologer to apply the techniques in practice without reference to other texts." - source?
I felt this was sufficiently demonstrated by the following example of how the topic is fully explored; however, the comment was not integral, so it seemed safer to remove this (so done). -- Zac Δ talk! 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use blockquotes for short quotes
Done - the shortest blockquote is now 52 words.-- Zac Δ talk! 16:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranges should use endashes
Done. -- Zac Δ talk! 16:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have replaced this with a reference to the Liddell Scott Jones ancient Greek dictionary at http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, which is the standard, authoritative source of reference.
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
Done -- Zac Δ talk! 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the duplication of dates in some Works cited entries?
Fixed -- Zac Δ talk! 10:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
Fixed -- Zac Δ talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
Fixed: I have ensured that locations are provided for them all. -- Zac Δ talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs should be linked
I believe I have fixed this although I wasn't certain what you meant. They are all now linked through to their entries in book catalogues (like World cat). If this is not what you meant, could you point me to an example please so I have a better understanding of what you need?
I fixed this the other day, not knowing about this page. You just put ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum, it automatically makes a link. The links weren't there because there were colons after ISBN, which breaks the linking. Yworo (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is JHU?
Fixed;I hadn't realised this was an abbreviation for Johns Hopkins University Press - I've put in the publisher's full title now. -- Zac Δ talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, reference formatting could be cleaned up. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been through them all carefully, and believe I have picked up the last of any inconsistencies. -- Zac Δ talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for taking the trouble to review. I will happily fix all these problems. I have done some today and will have the rest done by tomorrow night. I appreciate your critical eye. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I now believe all the above points have been corrected, please let me know if anything remains. Thank you -- Zac Δ talk! 15:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't have the expertise of most of the contributors to this article, I have studied the life and works of Ptolemy and read parts of my own copy of Tetrabiblos. Nearly two thousand years after publication, Tetrabiblos remains the most significant book on astrology and is still used as a reference point for certain key definitions such as the Tropical Zodiac. The article appears to be of a very high standard, well ordered and illustrated and the sources appear to be solid. Robert Currey talk 15:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I had to undo many of Zac's fixes to the Works cited section above (locations?), because he mixed in changing Wikipedia automatic ISBN links to searches of Worldcat. He did it not as a single edit, but as multiple edits, then continued to make changes to the Works cited section. There was no way to simply reverse this one inappropriate change. Yworo (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yworo, I hope you don't mind but I will revert your edit and then change the ISBNs manually. This will be easily done and otherwise I lose too much work on details that have taken me most of the day to get right. I wasn't sure about the ISBNs as you can see from my comment above, because I was under the impression that they were already linked this, so I thought there must be something more specific required. Please give me time to overhaul the works cited again and I will make a note here when I am done. Thank you -- Zac Δ talk! 16:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok , that's been fixed again, with the ISBN's put back and the other changes I listed above. -- Zac Δ talk! 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I specialize in Hellenistic astrology, and the article seems to be in good shape to me. I would only suggest a few minor changes:

  • Change effects to "effects" (with quotes) in original title paragraph.
  • In the first sentence under Introduction of Principles I wouldn't say "Aristotelian logic" but I would explicitly refer to it as Aristotelian or Peripatetic "philosophy." Aristotelian logic is a specific category of its own that doesn't necessarily imply Aristotle's cosmological paradigm, which is what was important for Ptolemy.
  • Change "No other ancient text offers a comparable account of this topic, in terms of the breadth and depth of detail offered by Ptolemy" to "No other surviving ancient text..."
  • Change "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of an individual horoscope." to "Books III and IV explore what Ptolemy terms “the genethliaogical art”: the interpretation of a horoscope set for the moment of the birth of an individual." The genethlialogical art is the art that pertains to births. Additionally, it should be "genethlialogical" here rather than "genethliaogical."
  • At the end of the section on book 4: add "annual profections" just before "ingresses": "The book ends with a brief discussion of astronomical and symbolic cycles used in the prediction of timed events, which includes mention of (primary) directions, annual profections, ingresses, lunations and transits."
  • Centiloquium: may want to add that it was known in Greek under the title "Fruit" as well (Καρπός). See James Holden, Five Medieval Astrologers, American Federation of Astrologers, Tempe, AZ, 2008, pg. 69.
  • May want to emphasize a little more that the Centiloquium was not written by Ptolemy, or at least that there is no evidence to indicate that it was.

Since these changes are all rather minor I will go ahead and add them in myself now. I think that this will make an excellent featured article. --Chris Brennan (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose the article is significantly weighted and written out of a primary source—the subject of the article (in a scholarly translation). Secondary sources appear to not drive the narrative or interpretation: compare the discussion of chapter 10 at footnote 93 where two secondary sources explicitly authorise the reliance upon the primary source; with the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 at footnote 96 where no secondary appreciation is relied upon for weighting, significance or interpretation. The article is comprised largely of the latter; as an attendance to the runs of footnotes reading "Tetrabiblos (Robbins ed. 1940)" in sequence demonstrates. This is an important article for the encyclopaedia; but, as it stands the research is deeply flawed. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition works are not correctly cited, "Burnett, Charles and Greenbaum, Dorian Gieseler, (eds.) 2007. The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology. Bristol, UK: Culture and Cosmos, Vol.11 no 1 and 2, spring/summer and autumn/winter. ISSN 1368-6534." is not a work; nor is " Burnett and Greenbaum (2007) 'The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation' by Deborah Houlding, p.266, footnote 12". There are very clear ways to cite journal articles in the style you're using; and you're not citing them correctly. In the bibliography Author, Year. "Title" Journal Volume number. page range. Compare to Riley 1988 where you get it right per your own style. Debra Houlding deserves to be recognised as the author of "The Transmission of Ptolemy's Terms: An historical overview, comparison and interpretation". Fifelfoo (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will look at this. I have a question whether this applies to books that present chapters by guest authors as well as journals. I'll place the details on the talk page shortly. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. With books, we cite (and add to the bibliography where appropriate), chapters which are authored by an author other than the author or editor of the book as a whole. So Jone Joneson, "My dog Fred" Book of Dogs Robert Robertdaughter ed.; or Kevin Spacey "Introduction" Don't confuse your Kevins Kevin Bacon (author). Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This "Ptolemy's Terms and Conditions by Deborah Houlding, 2007; The Winding Courses of the Stars: Essays in Ancient Astrology, pp.261–311. (Bristol: Culture and Cosmos). Presents a history of transmission of manuscripts and texts and a detailed analysis of Ptolemy's table of planetary terms." isn't further reading btw, you cite it twice, and both times poorly and out of style. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In good news, Corensearchbot shows clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may wish to look at how you're using your sources, as I noted this at RS/N in relation to a query, "compare Wiki "the fact that the Tetrabiblos presents one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" and Houlding 1993 "Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology, - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'." That's close paraphrase out of the box (bold), plus misrepresentation of opinion as fact (ital)." The bolded sections appear to be too closely paraphrased for me. The central noun phrase "oldest complete manuals of astrology" has moved from the source to wikipedia unchanged. Close paraphrase constitutes plagiarism, even when acknowledged as it takes the words out of anothers mouth. You can, of course, quote reliable sources: According to Houlding, "modern astrologers…manuals of astrology." and with short quotes that is fine and good scholarly practice for attribution of opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, it is attributed to Houlding, but I will take a look at this and all your other points. If there are other points, could you add them to the talk page please? -- Zac Δ talk! 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Fifelfoo's remarks - I am confident that this has been impeccably researched and the narrative is completely reliable. A full range of secondary sources has been utilized and referenced, and although I am very familiar with all of the English language editions (as well as possessing many of the the Greek and Latin editions) I have offered most of the references to the Robbins’ edition specifically because the online edition is known to have an excellent reputation and the pertinent points are able to be specifically hyperlinked, (hence the reader can check any point if required).
It was not necessary to refer to a secondary source for the discussion of chapter 13 and 14 because the narrative does not make a controversial point, but merely presents a brief summary of what is found in those chapters – this is easily verifiable by reference to the Robbins edition text (and there is no controversial difference between the Robbins text and the other texts editions on this point). Fifelfoo, if you feel there is any point of unreliability, please explain on the talk page, because I am unaware of any content that could be considered controversial. If there is, I am sure it can be easily fixed. -- Zac Δ talk! 10:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your rapid response, but I still feel obliged to oppose. The weight, focus and nature of the explanation of these chapters is derived from (or is seen to be derived from) personal synthesis, rather than appreciation in secondary literature. Imagine King Lear if I summarised Act III based on reading Act III of King Lear. While this is a scholarly account; it appears to be and is readily seen to be derived from a personal reading of a primary source—it appears to be and to me is Original research. It is impossible to pass OR as encyclopaedically relevant. I would suggest you consider the introductions and scholarly appreciations, and add citations to indicate that your narrative is broadly synthetic of the scholarly sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I have asked you to specify any concern on the talk-page, because exceptional pains have been taken to ensure there is no area where OR could be suggested. If there is, then concerns can be easily answered or addressed of course. On a specialist topic like this it is easy to mistake effective summary for synth, but here the article is seen to be reliable by the fact that every point has been qualified by a reference to a secondary source or the text itself, whether controversial or not. Please appreciate that reliable summary is not frowned upon by Wikipedia. In addition to the policies on OR and SYNTH this is also clarified in WP:SYNTHNOT which states

"If it's an accurate, neutral summary, then it's verified by the sources for the statements being summarized. Summary is not forbidden by any Wikipedia policy. On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process".

I am confident that this article adheres to those standards but if you are able to identify any part of it that you feel is controversial in its summary of the book's content please do specify so concerns can be seen to be addressed. -- Zac Δ talk! 12:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More work needed. Per Fifelfoo there is too much summary just relying on the text itself rather than on what scholars have said about the text. The nominator could ask for advice on sourcing at the various WikiProjects to which this article belongs, not just WikiProject Astrology. WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome may be able to find experts who can help. Deborah Houldings' work doesn't appear to be scholarly, and the nominator would need to make a case that she has been widely cited by historians if she is to be used as at present in interpreting the material. She might be a good source for how the Tetrabiblos is used by contemporary astrologers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an independent view from someone in the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome might be sensible. The reason is that Itsmejudith and Fifeldoo were involved in recent controversial arguments about whether Ptolemy’s work on the theory of astrology can be quoted at all on Wikipedia! This may have influenced their decision to oppose. (In the same thread it was proposed that “The Loeb translation is available at Bill Thayer's Lacus Curtius, here, … We should use this translation, I'd say, and definitely avoid earlier ones” – this source appears to have been used throughout.)
Reference to Deborah Houlding’s work is essential as a well-known reliable secondary source on some key details. Her work was peer-reviewed by experts in the field (Charles Burnett and Dorian Greenbaum) and its reliability has been commented on by independent and influential academic sources. See here, where Stephan Heilen – in the most authoritative account of Ptolemy’s work to-date (Ptolemy in Perspective, edited by Alexander Jones) refers to her contribution and how it influenced his own theories. He describes her work as “rigorous research” which was conducted with “painstaking accuracy”. This is obviously an excellent testimony which demonstrates that her work is treated seriously, discussed and deemed worthy of consideration by the other notable historians who work in this specialist area.
I cannot imagine what additional work could go into this article at this stage. Perhaps Itsmejudith could itemise any points that she feels are unreliably reported so that other editors can review them. To my mind, there is no doubt this is a scholarly and reliable article in its present condition that should receive featured article status. Robert Currey talk 17:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of floating this to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and will add a notice to their project pages. It is important that any reviewer who suggests that this may not be reporting what the scholars are said, is actually aware of who the influential scholars are, and what they have reported - such a person would, I'm sure, be both capable and willing to specify what pertinent source has been omitted, or what point needs further development (and why). As Robert Currey has noted, Houlding's research is taken seriously and is seen to be influential in that it is discussed and referred to by leading scholars in highly respected academic works. -- Zac Δ talk! 19:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I think you will get some comments worth considering. On Houlding, I think you may still be setting the bar pretty low for scholarly acceptance, but we will see. Robert Currey misunderstands the argument about Ptolemy as a source on Wikipedia. Regulars on RSN have pointed out to you that Ptolemy is a primary source in Wikipedia terms. This issue comes up all the time, as you can see if you look through the RSN archives, and the reponses are consistent. We write articles up from reliable secondary sources. That means recent scholarship, scholarship that meets today's standards. Ancient texts are never regarded as reliable secondary sources. As Wikipedia editors, we are not qualified to interpret them, and we need recent scholars to do this for us. Even to summarise ancient texts requires a level of competence that we do not necessarily have. Students in higher education are taught never to use a text that they have not read and understood. To read and understand the Tetrabiblos means reading it in ancient Greek. If you can't do that, then you need to use not Tetrabiblos itself, but the comments of the learned editor who presents it. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(To continue the standard RS/N response to attempts to use primary sources: even if an editor can read ancient Greek, when they're on Wikipedia they're an encyclopaedia editor, not a historian of science, nor a religious studies academic, nor an academic research astrologer) Fifelfoo (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only repeat this point: it is not problematic to summarise content when the translations are trusted and there is no controversy attached to the point being summarised, or to refer to the primary source when quotes or direct reference is being made to its contents. The article reports what the notable secondary sources say wherever interpretation of meaning or assesment is made. I have requested review from members of the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, and if there is a problem of unreliability in any comment in the article, I am sure that someone on Wikipedia will be able to specify this. -- Zac Δ talk! 02:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly not yet. Collation with the learned preface to the Loeb edition, conveniently available here suggests a certain level of carelessness, and the presence of a fixed idea.
    • As an example of the first, Robbins quotes two titles found in the MSS. and says that one is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy. Our article says that the formal title is "unknown", and then proceeds to discuss the other, citing Robbins. This is misunderstanding.
But that’s not actually the case: the article cites Robbins, Jones and Helien, and shows by the footnote references that the text in the article is based directly on the comments of Jones and Heilen. This is because Robbins wrote his introduction in 1940, and our knowledge of Ptolemy’s work has advanced since then. Alexander Jones, Professor of the History of the Exact Sciences in Antiquity, is the author of the Springer edition of Ptolemy in Perspective (2010), which presents nine recent scholarly studies of Ptolemy’s work, including one by Stephan Heilen, a Professor of Classics. Both Jones and Heilen discuss the title, and what the article reports in the section entitled 'Original title' can be seen to be closely and carefully based on their comments by reference to the quotations given in the accompanying footnotes: 1 and 2. This is supported by the detail in footnote 1 of the page cited in Robbins, where he reports that the anonymous author of an ancient commentary on the work “says that some considered it [i.e., Tetrabiblos] a fictitious name”.
Therefore, it is correct and more reliable to give the emphasis to Jones and Heilen on this point, which the article currently does. I will, however, add more detail on what Robbins wrote into the footnote, so that the reader understands more clearly that what Robbins says is more likely to have been used by Ptolemy is the fuller title found in the Norimbergensis manuscript ‘Mathematical Treatise in Four Books’ than the common title (which Jones refers to as the “nickname”) Tetrabiblos: ‘The Four Books’.
-- Zac Δ talk! 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is now done. I have added information to the footnotes, and also to the main article text to cover all relevant scholarly opinions. As can now be seen more clearly, the opinion of Robbins is no longer considered authoritative. -- Zac Δ talk! 17:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A far more serious misunderstanding is this:
    • Robbbins says Though the Tetrabiblos enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more, its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century.
      What millennium does Robbins mean? The 1800 years from Ptolemy to himself? No, the 1300 years from Ptolemy to the High Renaissance after which Ptolemy was absorbed into the Latin astrological tradition.
      This has been quoted incompletely and misleadingly by ending at "...more," probably through a sincere misunderstanding of the case.
I don’t accept that there is any point of misunderstanding here, because:
  1. In the introductory section (General overview and influence) the article merely states that the book is said to have "enjoyed almost the authority of a Bible among the astrological writers of a thousand years or more".(ref to Robbins). This is used only as a demonstration of the book’s indisputable notability. Robbins was not specific, but only said “the writers of a thousand years or more”, so it would be WP:OR to speculate on what he meant specifically, and unecessary to elaborate further at this point of the article anyway.
  2. The section on Editions and translations explains the reproductions in detail – and this is where the reader can establish when there were periods of increased attention in the work. It is very clear that the book's influence in the West did not collapse at the end of the High Renaissance but increased dramatically following the flurry of 16th century Greek translations by Camerarius (who produced two of the Greek editions Robbins’ refers to) Allatius’ Paraphrase, the publication of the Anonymous Commentary by Hieronymous Wolf, and the highly influential inclusion within astrological compendiums of leading astrologers such as Junctinus (another reproduction of the Greek text) and Cardan.
In addition, Robbins’ comment, that “its Greek text has been printed only three times, and not at all since the sixteenth century”; is no longer correct. Following his own publication of the Greek text, a Greek edition was published by Boll-Boer, and then there was the Hübner edition of 1998. So in fact omission of the comment that it has not been reproduced in Greek “at all since the sixteenth century”, leaves no misunderstanding, since this is not the case. The more relevant point however, is that the quote is only demonstrating notability, and it is not in any way misleading to suggest that the book did hold this position of notability and to refer to Robbins' comment as an example of how this has been commented upon. -- Zac Δ talk! 05:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The text on this point is greatly improved. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is a paean on Ptolemy's direct effect on modern astrology. This would be inappropriate if it were supported by sources, and it is not. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you mean ‘appropriate’ where you say ‘inappropriate’ and build my response in relation to that.
No. Campaigning for a POV is inappropriate even if the sources are polemics for it, which (aside from Ptolemy himself) these are not. Stating their claims as facts (provided they are consensus, which the assertions of polemics often are not) would be a different matter. But the accuracy of judicial astrology is not a consensus position, so that does not apply. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point which requires consideration: I realise that this article touches on issues that arouse feelings of discomfort from some – in fact, probably many - WP editors. Astrology is a controversial subject, and as a fringe topic the general attitude towards its presentation on WP is that it should not be treated with respect. The article aims to be objective and explains the topic as it was presented in the Tetrabiblos, according to the viewpoint of its author. Since Ptolemy’s philosophical defence of astrology was one of the reasons why this book, and as a consequence astrology itself, generated such historical significance, it is impossible not to discuss those arguments. On the other hand the article makes clear that Ptolemy held an ambivalent attitude towards some principles and practices of astrology, and was highly critical of others.
At an early stage of the article’s creation it was featured in a DYK entry because of the fact that the Tetrabiblos remains an important text book for modern students of astrology. The attention given to this point has since been toned down, although it is acknowledged in the lede and demonstrated by inclusion of footnote 6.
It would be easy to add more references of a similar nature to support the point, but this would increase the prospect of controversy, I believe, as many WP editors would not like to see an increased emphasis on modern astrological works. However, a substantial percentage of the WP readers who refer to this article will be students of the historical and modern practice of astrology. At the end of the day this was Ptolemy’s astrological work and astrology is its theme. The article therefore includes reference to the points that remain most notable in the subject, discussing where its core principles are evaluated or established, (for example, the article text that is referenced by footnotes 65-66) and points that have caused notable astrological controversies are introduced (for example: the discussion of the Lots made in the introductory paragraph to Book VI). It is necessary to give a clear explanations of the book's contents and to show how it is has had an effect on modern astrology, although I am wary that this, whilst to the liking to those who want to understand what the book was teaching, will also be to the disdain of many who dislike the whole concept or practice of astrology, historical or modern. -- Zac Δ talk! 07:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for being so frank. Now I must straightforwardly oppose; that is an argument for an in-universe POV, which is contrary to policy. That is not unreasonable when summarizing Ptolemy, and may be unavoidable - but those are not the sections under discussion. I shall be tagging the article accordingly.
  • On the matter of fact, if what the article said or implied was that Ptolemy had been indirectly influential since the Renaissance, that would certainly be defensible, and might well be unquestionable - although it would require a secondary source which said so explicitly, which Robbins does not. But it says something much stronger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For more, see Talk:Tetrabiblos#POV_and_in_universe and Talk:Tetrabiblos#Accuracy. These are smaller than the declared intention to violate core policy, and may be resolved rapidly. I have no objection if somebody brings them here, but it seems unnecessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose agree with the above comments. My two main problems with the article are that it's not backed up by reliable sources and there needs to be a section about its impact and which texts it subsequently affected. I understand the majority of the article dealing with the content of the book needs to be sourced to the documents, but most of this needs to be backed up by other sources, in context of an analysis. —Ed!(talk) 19:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 03:11, 12 December 2011 [42].

Glen P. Robinson[edit]

Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well-sourced, comprehensive summary of this (living) man's life. I ran the article through peer review a couple months ago, so hopefully the most glaring issues are taken care of. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't notate titles in all-caps
  • Need page numbers for multi-page sources like FNs 12 and 13
  • Magazine titles should be italicized
  • FN 21: publisher?
  • FN 24: publisher?
  • Don't italicize publishers. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on content coverage, source quality, toolbox issues, citation formatting I am a labour historian who primarily looks at institutions, not a business historian biographer. I'm planning to look at a variety of review elements with this article. I noticed this tight simple little bio wasn't getting reviews and felt I had to step in, but it could use a prose look over, because I am more than willing to admit that I don't write so good. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing—I've checked the formatting of the sources, and broadly checked the quality for HQRS criteria. I'll spotcheck below towards the end.
    • How is The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. a high quality reliable source given its method of data collection (see The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography)
    • Miscited, published by PR Newswire (archived by Highbeam): "Scientific-Atlanta Celebrates First Founders Day; Establishes Glen P. Robinson, Jr. Scholarship In Honor of Company's First President"
      • Does this look ok? diff —Disavian (talk) 06:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The code looks okay to me, any problem would lie in the template which is upstream from you. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last time I checked Time was a journal or magazine and deserved italics in the style you're using? "U.S. Business: One Way to Do It"
    • Compare your treatment of the same publisher (parenthesis) in Coffee, Hoyt (Fall 1995) and Dunn, John (Summer 1990).
    • http://www.policeone.com/ doesn't seem to have an editorial policy, or editor. What makes it a HQRS?
      • I don't see an editorial policy, but I did find the email address editor@policeone.com, which indicates that there is an editor. They're just republishing a press release, from which I am citing a noncontroversial fact (the company was acquired) that is corroborated in other sources and in LaserCraft's website itself (the title of which is "LaserCraft | A Public Safety Equipment Company"). I haven't found any other sources that publish that press release, though. —Disavian (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Non controversial material cited in a primary and corroborated in secondaries is fine—given that your other source is an involved primary too, I think that using these two sources for the fact is fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia" could do with a page specification
  • Content is good and well discussed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Child hood? War experience (Service, rank, theatre)?
      • I have attempted to add this information: diff. Most of the information is from this ref, page 16. —Disavian (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • While this is great information you will need to rewrite the content added in this diff it as it is overly close paraphrase of the original source. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could I have some help on that? I stare at that paragraph and can't find a coherent way of rephrasing it. It doesn't help that that's the only source that I've found that discusses his early life. —Disavian (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I understand the pain. I've edited over this paragraph, and probably got it wrong, but that may help you reedit it to a better result (I understand that the paucity of biographical detail makes this difficult to summarise without closely following the source, but my distance from the source may have changed that up) Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Your changes look pretty good to me. —Disavian (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've taken a look at the rephrase (at Disavian's request) and made a few edits to make the prose flow a bit better. LaMenta3 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 5919 does not appear in any of the sources cited, Template:Inflation-fn? Why are you using a CPI inflation on a small capital sum? Nominal GDP per capita suggests $14,900 as of 2010 per Samuel H. Williamson, "Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount, 1774 to present," MeasuringWorth, 2011. "each contributed $100 (for a total of $700, worth $5,919 today)"
    • This is why it isn't really a great idea to inflate data, you gave us a capital input sum inflated for $700 in 1951, but not these: "resulted in a $4,000 loss" " $3.1 million revenue in 1962, approximately $200 million when Robinson left in 1979, and $1.9 billion in revenue in 2005" "2000, he invested $1.5 million in Genomic Solutions Inc.[25] Most recently, Robinson is an investor in and co-founder of the 2007 VentureLab startup, C2 Biofuels, which aims to build several $100 million" "$1.5 million Glen P. Robinson Chair" "due in part to his $5 million donation towards its construction."
      • So, you're suggesting that we simply remove the inflation notes? I just want to make sure that's what you're suggesting before we do it. —Disavian (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You do need to know that I have a strong editorial opinion against using inflation calculations; to the point that it may be my hobby horse. I would suggest removing the inflation templates as they are close enough in time to the present to not be many factors of ten out. However, if you feel this is wrong for your article, please seek a second reviewer as this is a point on which I have a strong opinion that may lie outside the FAC norm. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there's really any "norm" in FAC over the use of inflation templates, though once it's established that the calculations are by template and not independent research by the article's editors, from what I've seen, it's typically considered acceptable. I would also point out that it appears that most of the other high-quality historical articles that are mostly being taken care of by WP:GATECH seem to make similar use of it, and it's become an unofficial "norm" there. If it's not out of line, I'd argue that for the sake of uniformity to that project, it should be left.LaMenta3 (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • There isn't, but I'm going to strongly suggest that this is an "all or none" issue; and that you can't inflate capital values using a CPI inflation. The first would be a quibble that the delegates would over look. The second I'm quite strong on, and have previously opposed successfully on. Money, over time, acts differently if it is capital, workers wages, workers consumption, the consumption of the rich, a national economic initiative, stockpiles of goods, etc. CPI does not reflect the opportunity cost of capital particularly well. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • On one hand, I feel like this is a quibble more suited for discussion on the template itself (or an argument for additional, more accurate templates better suited to the various contexts). On the other hand, I understand what you're getting at, and if there were a more accurate alternative to contextualize the amount, I would certainly say use it. However, I feel that the historical amounts do need some kind of contextualizing in terms of current worth, and right now, CPI seems to be the only uniform (to the project), reasonable approximation available in a neat, pre-cited, template format on Wikipedia, and thus, I return to my first point, which is that more, better-suited templates are likely needed for better accuracy. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • CPI is a poor indicator for………and that's why the Australian bureau of statistics uses a linked set of series to explain consumer prices. Oh dear, you just told me SOFIXIT and I do have a capacity to do so. Anticipate a US capital inflation template and inflation footnote set before this review through. Then you can inflate all your figures using the same calculation and an appropriate calculation.Fifelfoo (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Works for me. :) LaMenta3 (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've done this, and changed the article, please consider the results. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Content coverage otherwise appears adequate for a business biography
    • Inappropriate editorial tone: "Years later, the school would proudly boast of Scientific Atlanta's origins at Georgia Tech"
      • How about "promote" instead of "proudly boast"? diff —Disavian (talk) 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is more a hidden comparative [To begin with the School placed difficulties in the path.] [But now! They celebrate this, and were therefore originally wrong.] Years later seems to be a key element of the problem, as it implies that on judicious reconsideration. Do you see what I mean here, that there's an editorial element that an encyclopaedia can't sustain by itself? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source I cited explicitly states this fact, though. I can dig out the book and quote it here if you'd like, or we can just remove the sentence. —Disavian (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • If it is explicit editorialisation by a reliable source, try working it into a quote! Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not a bad idea. I'll look at trying that tonight. —Disavian (talk) 18:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • So this the text I was getting that statement from. There's editorializing there, but it's... subtle. It doesn't seem particularly quotable. I went ahead and linked the relevant names. Disavian (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]

                Futher friction occurred when Rosselot agreed to accept the presidency of Scientific Associates, a direct spin-off from the station incorporated on October 31, 1951. This private firm later evolved into Scientific Atlanta, a multimillion dollar Atlanta-based electronics corporation. Georgia Tech administrators today look with great pride to Scientific Atlanta as an example of how the school has helped to create a "high tech" infrastructure in the state of Georgia. Although there is no explicit reference in the files indicating the case, several principals have suggested that Vice President Cherry Emerson viewed the participation of EES personnel in this private research concern as a potential if not direct conflict of interest. Policies did later develop under Emerson that required a written request to the president in order to undertake outside work with Scientific Associates. Emerson also suspected that Scientific Associates competitively sought contracts that otherwise would have gone to the station.

                — Engineering The New South, page 263
                • Your text follows the editorialisation here adequately, and appropriately. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • On a side note, what you said above ("[To begin with the School placed difficulties in the path.] [But now! They celebrate this, and were therefore originally wrong.]") fairly succinctly encapsulates the progression of nearly every major historical event related to Georgia Tech. That said, it made me laugh. LaMenta3 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toolbox all looks good: Alt text is fine; Citebot is fine; No disambiguations; Links seem good. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [43].

S&M (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... from what I have gathered from the last FAC, the only thing which (in some people's opinion) seems to be a problem is the length of the Background section. I'd like to say that there is no Background information missing, this is everything. And this article should not be Opposed purely on the basis that it might be too short for a few peoples preference. All that should matter is that all of the Background info is there, so I don't really see why it is a problem. I really don't think there is much that could hold this article back now for being Supported, I mean: 2 Peer Reviews, 3 GANs and 3 FACs! lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (1a, prose): I don't think the above nom statement shows an understanding as to why this article regularly fails its FACs (this is its fourth). I have just read it through for the first time; there are still basic errors in the prose, such as I have listed below:-

  • "Under her stage Sandy Vee": Missing word
  • "as her albums fourth...": Missing apostrophe
  • A sentence should not begin and end with the same words, thus: "The video ... the video" and later "The music video ... the music video"
    Where is this? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lead, third paragraph second sentence, and "Copyright infringement" section, opening sentence.
  • "the lyrics should not be construed as too literally..." doesn't make sense. Remove "as"
  • "S&M received garnered mixed responses..." Either "received" or "garnered", not both.
  • "In Poland, the song peaked at number one on the Polish Singles Chart..." The words "In Poland" are unnecessary, as are the words "In Denmark" and "In France" which begin subsequent sentences
  • "eighty-seven" requires a hyphen. If you are going to spell all numbers out, for whatever reason, you need to be consistent about this throughout the article.
    Why "19-year history" when other numbers are written out? Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what to make of this: S&M was Rihanna's 8th No. 1 hit, "making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's 19-year history". Later in the same paragraph: "Rihanna also logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history..." How does that reconcile with te earlier statement?
    Where does it say 8th? I just did a Ctrl+F and it returned nothing. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The text says "eighth". Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah I get why that was confusing, I went from Hot 100 debut to Pop songs and then back to Hot 100. Have re-organised it now. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still confusing; you seem to be dealing with three different charts. And I'm not sure what "In the issue dated April 30, 2011..." refers to - issue of what?
          • Yes there are three US charts mentioned. Have re-jigged it again and changed "issue" Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the general reader, what is the "bridge" of a song?
    Not yet explained. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone doesn't know, then they can just click on the link? I don't think it's right to explain what a bridge is of a song in the music video section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the same general reader, what are "daddy issues"?
    We don't know, it's something that is projected onto the wall in the video. It's never been explained what it means. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't know, best leave out the detail and say: "images of headlines referring to various accusation made against her in the press are projected against her body and against the wall behind her"
  • In the postpositive context "was generally well-received", no hyphen should be used.
  • "Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of New York's Southern District Court denied a motion to dismiss the copyright violation allegations,[62] however, noting many similarities between the works" The word "however" makes no sense in this sentence.
  • "The lawsuit was resolved on October 19, 2011, which resulted in Rihanna..." Wrong construction. What you mean is "The resolution of the lawsuit, on October 19, 2011, resulted in Rihanna..."
  • "an disclosed sum of money"; do you mean "an undisclosed sum of money"?
  • "based on the fact that" is a verbose way of saying "because"
  • Multiple issues with this: "Paris-based photographer Philipp Paulus later sued as well, alleging further copyright violations, with regard to a scene in the music video where Rihanna wears a large dress and is taped to the wall with a plastic sheet covering of her". Do't say "as well", say who he sued; lose the comma after "copyright violations" and sort out "a plastic sheet covering of her".
    Well, the sheet does cover her in the video. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearer, now, but "a large dress" is not really informative. What was noteworthy about this dress, apart from its being "large"?
      • Done? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • A "larger-than-average" dress is no more informative than "a large dress". I won't press the point, but the wording is unimaginative. Brianboulton (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how else to say that the dress is big! That's what it is. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example of an overcomplicated and clumsily worded sentence: "This was due to the BRIT Awards corporation trying to avoid receiving similar complaints about Rihanna on the final of the seventh series of The X Factor on December 11, 2010, for wearing a provocative outfit and performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed."[67]
    You've not attempted to reword this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry I didn't see this. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sentence has barely changed. I suggest you amend to: "This change in performance arose the BRIT Awards corporation's concern to avoid the sort of complaints against Rihanna that had been made after the final of the seventh series of The X Factor, on December 11, 2010. Then, the singer had been criticized for wearing a provocative outfit, and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed."
          • Have kinda used what you wrote. I don't like the "Then, " as it doesn't making sense. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" while she spanked, groped and pretended to smack three semi-nude female dancers, with a cane." Fascinating, I'm sure, but to which part of her activities do the words "with a cane" belong? In my admittedly very limited experience, you don't grope or "pretend to smack" using a cane.
    Lol, you're funny. And yes it was fascinating. I've seen her do it twice live. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm glad you enjoyed it. I think you need to rephrase, however: ""Rihanna performed a cover of Prince's "Darling Nikki" with three semi-nude female dancers whom she spanked, groped, and pretended to smack with a cane."

This is not necessarily a full list, but these are the issues that jumped out. This is by no means a poor article: "poorly-finished", perhaps, but in terms of its coverage of the topic it certainly seems adequate. If the source and image reviews are in order (I've not looked at these aspects) I can see this crossing the line. Please do not respond to my points with bolded statements, and keep calm. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to three points which I would like you to clarify further. Other than that, I've done all of your points. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 13:40, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose. There is only two short paragraphs that is actually about the song (in the "Background and composition" section). This cannot be one of the best Wikipedia has to offer. And even then, the information in this section is made up entirely of quotations. Don't say that this is all there is about the song; the truth is that it is either poorly researched, or the sources aren't being used to their fullest potential. I did a google search, and within 3 minutes found "Ester Dean Talks Solo Career, Writing 'S&M' and 'Firework'", from Billboard, in which the main songwriter spoke about composing the song; I found "'RUDE BOY' WRITER ESTER DEAN ON PENNING HITS FOR RIHANNA, USHER", which does not necessarily mention the song, but goes into great detail about the mental processes of the songwriter when she composes songs for Rihanna; and I found "Rihanna, "S&M"", again from Billboard. Obviously something can be salvaged from these sources. And you can obviously do more in depth research. At least mention in sentence form that the song was written by xxx, and produced by xxx, and mixed and recorded by xxx, and mastered by xxx!! That's what the Background and composition" section is for. Stop bringing rushed, half-finished articles to FAC.
    On an entirely different note, a sentence reads "Jake Conway of Yale LGBT magazine Q wrote that the song's lyrics showed that...", yet the Q magazine linked to is a rock/indie magazine from the UK, and not a "Yale LGBT magazine".
    And lastly, your references are unformatted, and have the garish red text that reads "Cite error: Invalid ref tag..." Orane (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, I'd like some civility please. I have added the DeanBillboard interview. Also, The Boom Box site which talks about the writing process behind Dean's work is what I had used in "Rude Boy", so I have re-adjusted it to make it fit in with S&M. And the third site you provided isn't really Background info, it's just someones opinion that they have fabricated; Dean does not just specialise in writing "provocative pop". I have added who wrote and produced the song as well. I have removed "Yale LGBT magazine". And lastly, the reference which you said was coded red was actually formatted near on perfectly; all I had forgotten to do was ad ".." to the ref name. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 14:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

First off, you're welcome for the sources. I know you didn't ask me to find them, but a simple thank you would be appropriate here. My oppose remains because the background section is now 90% quotations, and 10% actual prose; also oppose because of prose concerns that have been raised: A few examples

  • "It reached number one in its fourth week on the chart and stayed at its peak position for weeks." How many weeks exactly? Sentence feels like it's missing something.
  • "Rihanna logged the shortest span between a solo artist's first and tenth number-one in the chart's history, a stretch of four years, eleven months and two weeks." Maybe a colon of emdash between the record she broke, and the time she took to do it (i.e. between history and eleven).
  • ""S&M" became Rihanna's eighth number-one hit on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, making her the artist with the highest pop number one hits in the chart's nineteen-year history." Doesn't make sense. Also echo Moisejp's comments below. Couldn't have said it better myself. Orane (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. But I can't help but think you have done here with some pre-conceived ideas, which should be left behind. I know what's been going on. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 12:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Sorry Calvin the prose is not FA quality. Here are a few observations and tips that I think will make your good writing sparkle and reach the professional level of accuracy and style required.

  • First delete every occurrence of "also" and then critically ask yourself is the word needed in the sentence. The reason why this will help to improve the flow of the prose are given here under "Additive terms".
    Done Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • I have mentioned the problem of fused participles to you elsewhere, Tony explains why they should be avoided here; this is one, "The video opens with Rihanna being dragged kicking and resisting into a press conference". Often, the use of this construction is difficult to reconcile with the rest of the sentence, which is a problem here.
    Doing. As I don't know what you mean by fused particle. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    The link I gave explains, with examples, what they are. Tony calls these constructions "noun plus -ing". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I know, that's why I said "doing". Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some word choices need to be improved. Here, "lost some of the appeal which" should be "lacked some of the appeal that" and colloquial phrases such as "a bit of", "biker chick" and "motorcycle prop" are not found in FAs.
    Have removed "a bit of" and "prop". But Biker chic is a style of clothing, which describes what the feel of Britney's performance is, so I don't know what you expect me to change to. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "with Spears as a biker chick". Graham Colm (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Have put it into quotations, as that is how she was described as by the writer of the article. I don't know how else you want me to write it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many phrases that are untidy and confusing. This is one example, "with the performance beginning with the stage decorated as an S&M-inspired set". There is another fused participle here, which doesn't help, but there are other problems such as the two occurrences of "with" and is "inspired" the best word here?
    Removed with and inspired, reworded sentence. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
  • This sentence needs to have a connector to link it to the previous sentence, "The singer had been criticized for wearing a provocative outfit and for performing a suggestive dance routine before the watershed." You could use a simple "Then," (but don't forget the all-important comma).
    I was told to do that above, but I don't think it reads right? It's ambiguous as to which tense it is talking about. But as you are the second person to say, I'll add it. Calvin • Watch n' Learn
    I suspect you haven't recognised the power of that humble comma in it's ability to refer readers to the immediate past rather than than the immediate future. 00:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    Lol. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 00:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the above is generic advice that needs to be applied throughout the article – addressing the examples given alone will not bring the quality of the prose up to FA standard. Graham Colm (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, when I've addressed those 5 points you will Oppose anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 15:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, the simple edits that you have made this afternoon have improved the article greatly. Please don't presume and try to work with the reviewers and, as Brian says above, above all keep calm. Graham Colm (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping calm, can't you tell? Lol. But what I'm saying is, you've said that more needs to be done, but haven't said what those things are, which means your vote will stay as an Oppose. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 16:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, I think what Graham Colm is saying is that if you really want this FA bad enough, you should take the initiative yourself to go through line by line and ask yourself critically "Is this the clearest, most concise, most professional way to express this idea?" You always come into these reviews with the attitude that the Wikipedia community owes you FAs and GAs and Keeps, and that if they don't give them to you, it's because they're out to get you. They're not out to get you. They're trying to give you constructive criticism to help you bring your articles to certain standards agreed by the Wikipedia community. I think Graham Colm is saying that he, as a volunteer like all of us, may not have time to highlight every single instance that could be improved, but that if you take the time to look for other similar instances, you might find them. Calvin, all of the people above have opposed based on prose issues. Instead of thinking, "They're all out to get me," what if you took a more humble, positive approach and thought, "Oh, this is great. All these people have generously given up their time to point out some weaknesses of my writing. Great, I can use this to become a better writer, and all of my future articles will be better for it." Moisejp (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually being serious? I can't believe you just said that. When have I said "They're all out to get me,". I have addressed all of the points. I've had a really shit couple of days and I don't need someone saying things like that to me. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin, that was good advice; please do not let your penchant for gut reactions and appeals for sympathy drive away much needed reviewers. Graham Colm (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that I've had 3 people review on this FAC, last time it got closed after a few days. But I don't like how people think that of me. Of course I want people to comment. When I see people have commented, I do the points straight away, no one can deny that, and I don't look for or expect sympathy. I say things how they are. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, Calvin. I can see there's no getting through to you, and I won't try again. Peace, Moisejp (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • Here, "by punishing the ones who have written negatively about her or personally hurt her" - how can a music video punish?
    That's what some of the content is, the narrative. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that interviews are "with" persons (usually journalists) and "for" magazines.
    Done. I never knew that! Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot the redundant word here "it was banned in several countries and restricted to night time television transmission in others".
    Transmission? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seems to be a word missing here "and was sent to US Top 40/Mainstream and rhythmic radio on January 25, 2011".
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "Rihanna's vocal range spans one octave from the lower note of B3 to the higher note of B4." Presumably on this song?
    Yes. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a missing comma here, "Skinner criticized the use of overly suggestive lyrics which he said were not synonymous..." – or use that instead of which.
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You need to brush up on restrictive and non-restrictive clauses. In this context "which" needs to proceeded by a comma, "that" does not. If it's any consolation Christopher Isherwood never got this right. Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't even know what they are. Was never taught them at school. But have done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like you were educated in the UK (as was I) where they stopped teaching formal grammar in the 1960s. I had to teach myself all this :) Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Haaa. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here try in which she wears -"The video then cuts to an outdoor scene, where she wears a cream-colored latex dress".
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "illuminati" the correct word here, "such as Illuminati ties she has been accused of"? And the whole phrase needs fixing as the meaning is obscure.
    Yes. When there are projections of media titles in the video, "illuminati" is projected. And apparently she is apart of the illuminati. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but "illuminati" is already plural – you have written "such as Illuminati ties ".Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think people would know what I mean if I write the singular, as it is commonly known as Illuminati. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Calvin, that was my misreading. Try replacing "ties" with "connections". Graham Colm (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about "implying various sexual acts".
    Lol okay. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 22:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    How come? The video is full of it! Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Remind me to watch it. But I would prefer "suggestive of".Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've written explicit, as suggestive just doesn't cover it. S&M, as in the actual physical act, is not suggestive, it's explicit. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think "faced" is the best word here "The music video faced further controversy" - try "caused".
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "resulted in Rihanna being" - this sentence needs to be rearranged to avoid the construction that we have discussed before. Try putting the message upfront, " Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money...".
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done. Now we have "The resolution of the lawsuit, on October 19, 2011, Rihanna was ordered to pay LaChapelle an undisclosed sum of money." Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot the redundancy here, "After the case, LaChapelle expressed that the lawsuit was nothing personal against the singer, saying "[it's] not personal, it's strictly business"."
    After the case? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Look for the same information given twice.Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't flow, "to singers sampling others songs in their own" - it needs expanding a little.
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No not done. Try adding "for use". Graham Colm (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here "Rihanna wears a larger than average dress" - so what is an average dress, and how much larger? This seems a silly thing to say.
    This has been a problem. It used to say "large dress". Shall i say "gown"? As that implies it is big. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, "Rihanna ultimately performed only the chorus plus one verse between" why plus and not and.
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs fixing, "with Rihanna in white as well as PVC thigh-high boots".
    Done. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the significance of "urban" here, "it was sent to urban radio stations on March 8, 2011".
    Because it got officially released? I've removed it anyway. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Colm (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Have replied to some. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 20:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many basic errors can you spot in this recently added sentence, "Rihanna explained in an interview for Spin magazine that the lyrics should not be construed too literally, explaining that she does not think of the song in a sexual way, but rather metaphorically, because of how it implies that people can talk about someone but it cannot be prevented, as well as saying that you have to be a strong person and not let peoples opinions get the better of you"?
  • And in this one "S&M" peaked inside the top-ten for ten consecutive weeks and spent a total of twenty-four weeks on the chart in total"?
  • And here,"It peaked number one two weeks later stayed at its peak position for five non-consecutive weeks"?

Graham Colm (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done all. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 17:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done – take another look. And, it would help reviewers rather your saying "done", if you gave more details.

Calvin, I have to point out before one of the FAC delegates comes down on us like a ton of bricks, that FAC is not the place to come to get articles fixed. They should be highly polished before nomination. Yes, some FACs last for weeks, but not because of the need to fix elementary grammatical and stylistic errors. You are not learning from your mistakes and reviewers are not going to follow you around to point them out. You are too used to the GA process (and I notice you are trying to deal with one concurrent with this nomination), but FAC is in an entirely different league. What do we have to say to convince you find some collaborators? You desperately need them. Graham Colm (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham, I know that FAC is not where one should come to get articles fixed, but as you know, S&M is my first attempt at getting an article to FA. I never thought it would have been this difficult to get it to that status, and there have been no two points the same in the 4 FACs, so I clearly am learning from them. This article has had an unbelievable amount of input from other editors, it really has. Look back over the last 6 months, so many editors have been involved. And I can't help that I am "used to the GA process", there's nothing that can be done about that. I'm sorry I'm not someone who is only concerned with FA and racks them up all the time and is used to the process article after article. I have learned a lot from these FACs, but as I've never (successfully) promoted one to FA, I don't know the full extent as to what an FA looks like which I have written. And saying to look at other FAs hasn't helped me, as all FAs are different. As noted above, a lot of things come down to personal opinion, like the Background section. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 19:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lengthy commentary above, I popped down to a random section and found:

  • It was remixed by several notable DJs, including Dave Audé, Joe Bermudez and Sidney Samson; these remixes were released as a digital remix package and made available to download via iTunes.

Do you see the problem? I've let this FAC run longer than usual, but the prose still needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [44].

Liverpool F.C. in European football[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article has recently undergone a copyedit which has improved the prose, which was the main issue when the article went to GAN. A peer review was recently undertaken which helped improve the layout of the article and improve it for non football readers. All in all, I believe the article is ready to be considered for promotion. NapHit (talk) 16:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include both authors for Ponting refs?
Steve Hale, the co-author is a photographer, it's ponting that has wrote the book, I can include him if you want? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • be consistent in whether you provide locations for newspapers
done NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent date format
scanned through the article and I can't find any inconsistent dates, could tell me which were the offending dates please? NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Retrieved 12 September 2006" vs "Retrieved June 6, 2011". Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done NapHit (talk) 18:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LFC History is a highly reliable site, the authors of the site have recently released a book entitled Liverpool F.C. the complete record using info from their site. Statistics from the site have been regularly used on the club's official site, and the club has recognised the site's work. I think all this make it highly reliable. NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your first sentence isn't really relevant, but the second helps. Do you know who the authors are and what their qualifications are? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sixth paragraph on this page will clear up any reliability issues. NapHit (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added the page NapHit (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have only read the lead, and I find the first paragraph dense and difficult. There is probably too much detail, and the organisation of material is confusing. Specifically:-

  • The opening sentence: "Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, whose team has regularly taken part in Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) competitions, winning a British record total of eleven trophies since their first appearance in 1964". is very clumsily phrased and far too long. Is it really necessary to say that Liverpool Football Club is based in Liverpool? Try to redraft as two succinct sentences.
  • "Qualification for English clubs is determined by a team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions." That wording implies that the qualification rules for other (non-English) clubs are different – is that the case? Also you need to clarify what the "qualification" is for, e.g. "European tournament qualification is determined..." etc
  • "From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool regularly qualified for the primary European competition, the European Cup, by winning the former Football League First Division." What does "regularly" mean here? The implication of the word is thst they won the first Division every year, which of course they didn't.
  • " Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been achieved either as runner-up or finishing in the top four of the Premier League". Eh? "Either as runner-up or finishing in the top four..." doesn't make sense (and nothing about winning either). You need to find a simpler way of saying that the top four clubs in the Premier League qualify.
  • The final sentence of the opening paragraph does not adequately introduce the other European competitions, and the wording "Liverpool have also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup..." is imprecise.

As the first paragraph of the lead is likely to be the first part of any article which is read, it is particularly important that it offers a clear and coherent introduction to the article. At present I think this doesn't quite do that. Brianboulton (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had a go at redrafting the paragraph and I'm happy with everything apart from the last sentence, which I'm going to redraft a few times to see if I can introduce the competitions better. NapHit (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have tried to address my points, but I don't think the lead works as it is. The first paragraph mixes details of Liverpool's performance with qualification rules that have changed over time and are quite hard to explain or follow. Elsewhere there is unnecessary detail, e.g. "Liverpool's first match in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland." That's not necessary in the lead. Instead of trying to patch and stitch, I've written a shorter lead which I think works better. You will find it here. Please feel free to adopt it. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it was a mess, I've incorporated your lead, which flows a lot better, thanks for that, I appreciate the help. Any further comments on the article would be welcome. Cheers NapHit (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple more tweaks, to clarify the difference between the old European Cup competition and the present Champions League. Please check the these changes make sense. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the successor trophy bit, as they still get the same trophy its just a different name, perhaps the best method would be to simply have European Cup/Champions League and then explain that it was rebranded in 1992? NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • European competitions: "This was later expanded, based on the countries rank in the coefficients...". Minor, but an apostrophe is needed at the end of "countries".
  • Paisley years: "As the 1975–76 League champions". Capitalizing League seems inconsistent with the rest of the article so far.
  • Fagan years: "Liverpool won the first leg at Anfield 1–0, their tactic in the second leg of withdrawing Dalglish into midfield put Benfica's game play into disarray". Comma clearly should be a semi-colon.
  • Benitez years: Don't need a second penalty shootout link, especially since this one's a general article, not specifically on the soccer version.
  • Repetition from one sentence to another here: "Dudek was replaced by Pepe Reina. Reina...". Try to avoid this if possible.
  • Another one here: "and again faced Chelsea. Chelsea progressed...". Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Giants I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Giants I put the apostrophe on the wrong sentence it should be right now. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Dweller

Kudos on a great article. I'm enjoying it immensely, as, like many English fans of other teams, I have a soft spot for LFC. However, I do have some observations, please bear with me. Comments will follow, below. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC) I'm doing some minor c-e as I go through the article, but here we go with my comments to-date... apologies, I've not read the above (TLDR), so they may conflict with or repeat things said before:[reply]

  • article title is too colloquial for my liking. It's also bewildering for non Brits - of course Liverpool F.C. is "in Europe", as is Halifax Town F.C.. Permanently, by dint of geography, not footballing ability. I know it fits with the other seven club articles in Category:English football clubs in Europe, but I don't think that they're Featured. The parent article English clubs in European football is much better titled. Sorry, that's an annoying one to start with.
Ye, that has been mentioned before, it is fairly ambiguous. I think titling it along the same lines as the parent article would be the best choice. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an easier one to deal with: "club" appears three times in opening sentence.
  • "that has been" implies it is no longer
  • first mention of each trophy should be wikilinked
  • comments on methods of qualification for Europe are way too detailed for Lead - it's an entire sentence utterly unrelated to Liverpool F.C.

More to follow. Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, I've dealt with a few, but I have work in the morning so going to bed in a bit, will address the rest tomorrow. NapHit (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • small point, but I believe RS usually talk about English clubs being "readmitted", not "reaccepted" (I'm a Norwich fan - no history of crowd trouble and we'd have qualified twice during the period of the ban, grr)
  • The section on European competitions seems massively overblown. I appreciate the rigour, but really just want the reader to understand what the various trophies are/were and roughly get an idea of their hierarchy. But mostly, it should be covered by a main article hatnote. I think you could make this an introduction section, which would then explain that in the early years of the competitions, Liverpool didn't play. You'd then explain something that is significantly missing from the article: why didn't Liverpool participate from inauguration of the competitions in 1955 until their first campaign in 1964. Sorry, I know that's another horror comment to get at FAC.
ok I think I've addressed all your concerns now, I've moved the page to reflect the name of the parent article. I've rewrote the section on the competitions per your comments, I'm unsure on the title though and how it should be implemented. I'm not sure whether it should stay as it is or be put into the history section. Anyway I hope the article is in better shape now. NapHit (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check that all citations follow a punctuation mark, per WP:MOS --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six confederations'" needs a wikilink --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kit did the team previously wear? --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started amending Internazionale's name to Inter [Milan], as most commonly used in English, but was uncertain and stopped. Might be worth getting some input from WP:FOOTY members as to what they'd expect in an FA --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its Internazionale, every football article I've seen on here refers to them as Internazionale, even the guardian reference refers to them by this name. I'm certain its WP:FOOTY convention to use Internazionale, when I've taken lists to FLC with Inter in the list its been suggested to use Internazionale. I've addressed all your comments. Cheers NapHit (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll continue next week. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't see anything or think of anything which is obviously missing. It seems complete. The only comment I'd make on this is that there's no mention of Liverpool's record in the Intercontinental Cup in the text itself. Brad78 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read the article. I've added bits about Liverpool's participation in the Intercontinental Cup, cheers. NapHit (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:49, 5 December 2011 [45].

Project A119[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after a painless GA nomination, and a thorough examination at WP:MILHIST's A-Class review, I feel it meets the criteria and is as comprehensive and stable as an article on a fifty-year-old classified military operation is likely to be. This is a great opportunity to help counter the harsh bias against moon-bombing shown on this encyclopaedia (and every other encyclopaedia too, for that matter). I'm not likely to be available to reply for the next night or so but I should be more than capable of addressing any concerns over the coming week and beyond. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 19:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consecutive footnotes should be in numerical order - eg. [2][3] rather than [3][2]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this page? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the first three (I saw one instance of non-consecutive refs, let me know if I've missed any others). As for the page you're noted, per the CV listed here on the same site, I believe it falls under the expert sources exemption of WP:SPS. GRAPPLE X 13:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That CV is for the site owner; the source you're citing was not written by him, but by Aleksandr Zheleznyakov. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Aha. I had assumed that the site owner would reliably vet what he publishes; however, thanks to Google Translate, I was able to glean this from Zheleznyakov's website, which further led me to this page. Again, this leads to believe that the source is by an expert in the field, more so now that it appears to come from an expert in "Soviet Cosmonautics". Also remind me to check the library for Sex in Space now... GRAPPLE X 10:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link check - no DAB-Links ("Dark side of the moon" can't be resolved), no dead external links, 3 minor wikilinks fixed. GermanJoe (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape check - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I checked all the sources for the article when it came up for A-class. And I mean all of them. I think this is a fascinating article, well written and well researched. I had never heard of it. It's good to learn new things occasionally. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—It's an interesting topic, but a quick read-through suggests that the article needs further improvement. Here are a few concerns I had:

  • (1) The lead contains the unsourced assertion that the "purpose of such an act would be to demonstrate the superiority of the United States over the Soviet Union..." However, the article says that it "was hoped that such a display would boost the morale of the American people, which had been shaken by the advances gained by the Soviets". Which was it? If the former is true, why isn't it expanded upon in the body? Superior in what way?
  • (2) "Project A119 was one of several possibilities that the United States investigated..." Possibilities for what?
  • (3) Who proposed the project?
  • (4) "...team of ten people...": this doesn't seem very concise. Were they subject matter experts or just ten random people?
    • Out of curiosity, I attempted to tentatively identify the names on the unclassified report. The following seem to be likely matches: James J. Brophy, Narinder Singh Kapany, William Edward Loewe, Dickron Mergerian, Verner J. Raelson, Carl E. Sagan, and Philip N. Slater; all unconfirmed of course (and so unusable in the article). They're all scientists and engineers.
  • (5) "...weight of such a device, as it would need to be propelled over 375,000 kilometers..." It shouldn't have anything to do with the distance. The chief obstacle is in getting the mass off the Earth and into an escape trajectory. The article needs to clarify this.
    • Clarification: if you have the delta-v budget you need to achieve to reach the target, the distance only matters because of the time of flight. I wouldn't expect the flight time to be a concern given the half-life of the fission materials. Perhaps it was worded this way for consumption by non-technical readers? Possibly the information could be presented as a quote, unless another source can be found that clarifies the reasoning.
      • When I read the original source, the wording was subtly different from what is in the article. Based on this source, the obstacle was that the hydrogen bomb was too heavy for the missile to achieve the target objective. The distance clearly isn't the obstacle because the atom bomb would have to be carried just as far. Does this help? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've dug up where the Los Angeles Times reported that same Associated Press story, already used as a source in the article. I've clarified things a bit now as a result. GRAPPLE X 21:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (6) It says the "dark side of the Moon", which is the side of the Moon not currently illuminated by the Sun. However, some readers may find this confusing as it is sometimes used colloquially to refer to the far side of the moon, which would hide the explosion from view. Some clarification would help.
    • I noticed the old wording had been restored. I changed it to the "unilluminated side" for clarity. RJH (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (7) The information about the objective needs to be collected together under one heading so that there is a historical flow to the content. Right now it's partly covered in the first paragraph of the "Project", and again in the "Soviet program" section. In between the two is the research and cancellation sections.
    • Clarification: the "Soviet program" section begins with "Another major factor in the project's conception...". This is a continuation of a previous discussion. It's clearly not a continuation of the "Cancellation" section, so it is out of place. It appears to belong just after the first paragraph under "Project".
  • The May 14, 2000 story in the Guardian appears to have a few details that are not covered in the article. For example, Reiffel subsequent opposition to the idea and the destruction of eight of his reports in 1987. You might also mention that in Reiffel's now unclassified study, the team had proposed placing three instrument package on the Moon prior to the explosion so that they could measure the effects.

There are some areas of the writing that may need a little work as well, but others can do a better job of checking that. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) I've amended the lead, (2) deleted the "several possibilities" bit since I couldn't find it in the sources and (6) clarified the "dark side of the moon" mention. (3) I've added in the the Air Force proposed the project, which is supported by the Guardian ref in the same paragraph. (4) I've reworded "a team of ten people" as "a ten-strong team" to be a bit more concise; however, beyond Reiffel and Sagan, it's not known who was on the team. I'd assume experts, obviously, but I don't know what proportion of scientists to military men it was. (5) As for the point on the weight of the device and the distance travelled, I've lost access to the source used for it, though I'm almost certain that it made the case for distance rather than inertia or gravity being the issue - I'll try to track it down again and clarify that, but I'm not sure if it would venture into original research to make additional claims as to the overcoming of Earth's gravity if that's not reported in the source, so I'm loath to add anything of that nature without re-reading that first. (7) I'm also not sure what you mean with the point about information on the project's objective being split up - the "Soviet program" section doesn't cover A119's objective, but it does offer some insight into the impetus behind going ahead with the project, which is relevant to the section as it's specific to discussion on the Soviet counterpart. What sections or lines did you think should be moved? GRAPPLE X 23:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    One possibility would be to move the first paragraph of the "Soviet program" section into the lead for the "Project" section, as an additional influence. The last paragraph could be moved to the "Cancellation" section, changing "the Soviet program" to "a corresponding Soviet program". But it's your call really. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've split the "Soviet program" section up into the other headings as you've suggested. I'm loading up the actual released document now to get looking at it for the claim of landing instruments (it's a big file and the lappy's a slow bastard); and I'll hopefully be able to check the book source for the distance-vs-escape velocity issue this coming Wednesday. GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this quickly, I don't think I'm going to be able to get it up to FAC standards within my self-allotted 2 hours, if we factor in question-and-answer time, so I'm going to need your help (or someone's help). Please read WP:Checklist and User:Dank/Copy1; there are multiple problems here covered on those two pages. I'll get you started.
  • "a top-secret plan developed in the late 1950s by the United States Air Force with the intention of detonating": It doesn't sound like a plan to intend to detonate, it sounds like a plan to detonate. Please see WP:Checklist#intention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The purpose of such an act would be": Wordy; combine with the previous sentence.
  • "to boost public morale in the United States": to boost US morale changed my mind on this one
  • "which had fallen due to the successes of the Soviet Union": "After" would be better than "due to", and it could be tighter. Please see WP:Checklist#because. - Dank (push to talk) 20:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the early phases of the space race": raises but doesn't answer the question of how the space race can be divided up into "phases". "early in the space race" is better, at least in the lead section ... you can go into detail about phases in the text if that makes sense.
  • "The details concerning the project came from": actually, not just the details, the very existence of the project. And "revealed" would be more active and more descriptive than "came from".
  • "a retired executive at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration": If he's retired, he isn't there any more. And "retired" has a small WP:DATED problem; assuming he's still living as I write this, he could take up a job at any time ... which wouldn't be relevant to our story here. So: "a former executive of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration"
  • "researching the theoretical effects": I'm guessing they were trying to predict the effects, rather than simply make theoretical statements about the effects. "predicting the effects".
  • That was all from the first paragraph. Someone have a whack at this please and see what you can do. Once I get started copyediting, I want to get it done within two hours. - Dank (push to talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) I think I've covered the points you've addressed. I went with your suggested wording where it was given; and rewrote the first few sentence of the lead to address your first few points. As for the "intention" point, I've changed the phrase to "after the successes" to imply chronology instead of causation. If I've missed anything, or if you see anything else, let me know. Thanks! GRAPPLE X 18:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on this (and it's always nice to see new people at FAC). I'm probably going to need some help with more than just the first paragraph, so I'll wait and hope that more help is coming. - Dank (push to talk) 18:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I've asked for help on my talk page, at WP:GOCE/FA, and at WT:MHC ... and we've got one bite so far, Nikki helped out. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Thanks for you work on the things I brought up; that all looks fine. Please check my tweaks to the lead section.
  • "apparently primarily because": If something is "apparently" true, it generally means it's an opinion, so it requires attribution. I might be able to fix this when I get further along. - Dank (push to talk) 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand what it means for a project to be funded by the US Army but run under the auspices of the USAF. Was the army keeping tabs on how the money was spent? - Dank (push to talk) 22:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed the clause mentioned US Army funding. Not entirely sure where that was meant to have come from if I'm being honest. Perhaps "army" maybe have been a holdover from the article's initial translation and an error on my part. Gone now as it's not in the source (Guardian article). GRAPPLE X 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "targeting the dark side of the terminator": presumably, terminator (solar). I don't understand where the "dark side of the terminator" is.
    • Addressed below, it's to one side of the terminator line, that is not presently illuminated. GRAPPLE X 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the potential consequences of an atomic explosion on the Moon. The main objective of the program ... was the detonation of a device, nuclear or otherwise ...": The first sentence implies they weren't researching conventional explosions; the second says they were.
    • Have removed "or otherwise". GRAPPLE X 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "detonation of a device ... to cause an explosion": triply redundant, although it probably wouldn't hurt anything to have two of the three words (detonation, device, explosion ... generally, "devices" explode).
    • Have phrased this whole section as "to cause a nuclear explosion that would be visible..." instead. GRAPPLE X 04:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another major factor in the project's conception may have been a rumor": This sounds like someone's opinion.
    • Have rephrased this sentence to remove any direct correlation, simply stating that the rumour had been reported. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "planning to launch a hydrogen bomb at the Moon", "by launching a nuclear device at the Moon": Repetitious. Also, I see that one of the sources was in fact representing this as firing a rocket "at" a target on the moon, but that's kind of a cartoonish view of a rocket trip to the moon, particularly in the 1950s ... that is, we should express some skepticism at that image.
    • To be honest, I'm not really sure what you mean here. Could you clarify this a little? If the issue is the language (something being fired "at" a target), I don't see how this is a "cartoonish" way of phrasing it - if an area was decided as the location for the explosion, that area would be targeted by the device, would it not? I may be misunderstanding the problem though. Have rephrased the rest to remove the repetition, however, it's just the second point I'm confused about. GRAPPLE X 04:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I'm not saying that your words are cartoonish ... that came from the source. In an age before integrated circuits, representing a moon shot as a simple matter of "firing a rocket at the moon" was clearly a misrepresentation. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aha, I think I get you now. I've rephrased that a bit to remove the notion of "launching" anything. GRAPPLE X 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an eclipse due to occur on November 7": an eclipse on November 7
  • "News reports of the rumored launch included mention of targeting the dark side of the terminator, a detail which was incorporated into the plans for Project A119; it was also reported that a failure to hit the Moon would likely result in the missile returning to Earth, which would become a factor in the Soviet project's cancellation.": I can't figure out what this sentence is saying. Which detail? How was it incorporated? What would become a factor? Did the news reports say that the problem had already been cancelled?
    • The detail was the target area, I've cleared up this sentence into two sentences which should read more clearly. Also removed the bit about the Soviet project's cancellation. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The project was likely influenced by a similar study initiated by the RAND Corporation in 1956, whose results remain secret to this day.": This raises but doesn't answer the question: if the results remain a secret, how do we know about the study?
    • Ulivi; Harland and Zhou, p.19 - "It was probably based on a still-secret RAND Corporation study, began in 1956, aimed at putting a nuclear warhead on the Moon." That's all the source says on the matter, as it immediately begins discussing Teller's proposals after this sentence. I can't conjecture beyond what's there, though I assume that Teller, Reiffel or both were involved with or aware of the RAND study. GRAPPLE X 04:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they don't say how they know about the secret study, I'd recommend leaving out that bit, per Hinting at User:Dank/Copy2. It's not uncommon for writers to imply that they know more than they can say, but unverifiable knowledge usually isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. From what I see above, from what I see in the sources, and from the frequest prose problems, I don't have confidence that the text accurately reflects the sources. Does anyone else have access to all the sources? - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    About to go through the article now to sort out those issues, but as for the terminator one, the terminator is the boundary between the illuminated and unilluminated sides of a body - so the "dark side of the terminator" is that side just beyond the illumination. Hope that clears that point up for now anyway. GRAPPLE X 04:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your work on this. I've reached my two-hour limit on this FAC, and I only got halfway through. I'll come back to this if it looks like other reviewers have finished it up. - Dank (push to talk) 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Is the "Armour Research Foundation" a government agency?
  • Image description page for File:ComputerHotline_-_Lune_(by)_(5).jpg seems to indicate that a caption attribution is requested. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added an attribution (I assume that's how it's to be done, correct me if I've done it wrong). ARF isn't a government agency, it's a contract research organization working with the Illinois Institute of Technology. Looking at the image in question, I think ARF is credited as the "author" in lieu of the individual authors of the document - would it be better to add the list of ten individual authors mentioned in the document itself? GRAPPLE X 15:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I'm confused: if ARF isn't a government agency, how can a work where it is the author be "a work of the United States federal government"? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be honest, the image was already in use and given its rationale before I came along - I assumed simply that it had been done correctly. My assumption is that the ARF scientists were the authors, but since the work was done for the US Air Force, the research is owned by the government. It was, after all, released by the government under a freedom of information request, which meant it was under their control and not under the ownership of the ARF. GRAPPLE X 17:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Under their control, but not necessarily under their copyright...is there any way to verify who actually holds the copyright to this document? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is clearly work for hire, with the copyright owned by the government under contract. There is no copyright notice in the document, just the standard disclaimer of no contractor ownership of patents. Such a notice was required before 1989 in order for the contractor to claim copyright. without it, the government has unlimited rights. See Frequently Asked Questions About Copyright Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/sports/baseball-steinbrenner-appoints-jeter-captain-of-the-yankees.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2011&oldid=468135351"