Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

2012 Budweiser Shootout[edit]

Nominator(s): Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2012 Budweiser Shootout, one of two expedition races of the 2012 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series, won by Kyle Busch. I believe that this article has met all the FA criteria and any feedback on this subject is most welcome. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Z105space, am I right in assuming this is your first FAC? If so, welcome on behalf of the coordinators! Just a procedural note, your article's Peer Review should be closed now that you've nominated here, per guidelines. Pls take care of that ASAP, and feel free to ask for assistance if any difficulty. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - After giving this article a peer review, I believe it is up to the standards of my current FA and (hopefully) future FA. Of course, there are no post-race standings as this is an exhibition race, but the article is complete in all other regards. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Well I promoted this to good article class and since the peer review fixed the remaining issues in this article, I have no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but despite the early support, this review has been dormant for well over a month, despite being listed for almost two weeks at WT:FAC as requiring attention. A former FAC delegate complained there re. prose, so perhaps a copyedit would be in order before re-nominating (after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

2006 UAW-Ford 500[edit]

Nominator(s): Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After a successful run with the 2010 Sylvania 300, I present the 2006 running of the UAW-Ford 500, known today as the GEICO 500 for sponsorship reasons. I have done everything I can to bring this article up to the standards of my first FA, and have brought it through all three stages of creation (New article, DYK and GA). I am nominating this because this is the final stage and I believe it meets the criteria. As the article is still relatively new, I expect there to be some kinks that will need to be worked out, but nonetheless, I believe the article is certainly in about as good enough shape as one can expect. Bentvfan54321 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z105space[edit]

Great article. Only one problem I came across.

  • All mentions of the Chase for the Sprint Cup should be renamed to the Chase for the Nextel Cup as this was a 2006 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series race. Once this has been addressed, I'm happy to support this FA nomination. Z105space (Talk to me!) 18:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Since the concern has been met, I see no reason to oppose. Z105space (Talk to me!) 07:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Checked again for issues, but I could not find any. Therefore, no reason to oppose. good888 (talk) 10:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but despite the early support, this review has been dormant for over a month, despite being listed for almost two weeks at WT:FAC as requiring attention. I note a former FAC delegate complained there re. prose, so perhaps a copyedit would be in order before re-nominating (after the usual two-week waiting period per FAC instructions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2015 (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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Boise National Forest[edit]

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a U.S. national forest in Idaho, but otherwise is fairly typical for a western national forest. I have worked on this sporadically for the past two years and finally think it's ready for FAC. I'm working on red links. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Red links are all gone. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several of the images are CC-licensed from Flickr, but should actually be PD as US government photos. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber[edit]

Will copyedit as I go and jot queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boise National Forest is a federally protected area that administers 2,267,000 acres (917,000 ha) of the U.S. state of Idaho. - hmm, I don't think the Area "administers" the - would you not say "covers"?
I'd link understory and evergreen....
Sacajawea’s bitterroot (Lewisia sacajaweana) is a plant species endemic to central Idaho,.... - I'd have either all plnats with scientific names or none of them....
sensitive species - is this an official term? Can it be linked somewhere?

Rest of it looks tight - will take another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes you suggested. "Sensitive species" is an official term within the Forest Service, but since there's nowhere to link to I tried to explain it at the beginning of the natural resources section. The question is since I explicitly mentioned one bird (of 13) that are listed as sensitive, should all the others be included (as well as the mammals, fish, amphibian, and plants)? Or should it be removed? I don't think this one species is any more inherently notable than any others, and there's only so much utility to listing species. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As is is good I think - examples are good in general. Not sure about listing all, but some better than none. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HalfGig[edit]

  • In "", "U.S. Forest Service" redirects to the fulled spelled out article name. My understanding is this should be avoided.
  • Same thing with "U.S. Department of Agriculture"
  • Same thing with "ponderosa pine"
  • Same thing with "Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness"
    • The redirect tools seems broken, so it is giving false readings. Can you go through the whole article looking for these?
HalfGig talk 13:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed all these. There were quite a few of them. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Thank you. I see no other issues, so I am supporting now. HalfGig talk 15:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maky[edit]

Only minor issues:

  • Is the external link at the bottom needed since it's given in the infobox at the top?
    • No, I don't think it's necessary and actually would prefer to remove it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some image captions, such as "Lucky Peak Nursery", tell me nothing, while the one labeled "The Elk Complex Fire in 2013" shows me a picture of a fire that's not discussed in the article. I'm okay with captions like "The Arrowrock Dam in 1938", though I do feel an article comes across more professionally if the image and caption say something relevant to the article. I'm just looking at this from the perspective of a person browsing Wikipedia who's mostly enjoying the pictures and reading the captions to decide if s/he wants to read the article.
I really like the changes. I hope it's okay with you. It's not required for FAC, but I sincerely feel that it makes the article read better. – Maky « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there no maps of the scenic roads? It's one thing to read about where the roads go, but another to see them laid out graphically.
    • The roads are actually faintly visible on the map on the page. I had hoped to make a map of the forest similar to but better than this one I made. I no longer have the software or files I used to make any of these maps, so maybe once I teach myself QGIS or something I'll give it another shot. There is a map in the forest's visitor guide that shows several things well, including the roads, but I don't think the map itself it right for the article. But I think that's about it. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it. If you'd really like such a map, you can always make a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. – Maky « talk » 06:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Since these aren't reasons to hold up promotion, I'm going to give my support for a very comprehensive article. Good job! – Maky « talk » 22:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- I didn't notice a source review above; you can request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley[edit]

  • There is a variety of units used in the lead - acres and ha for area, miles and km for rivers. For such a large area I think sq miles and km would be more useful for the area. This also applies to 'Management', where the districts are described in acres and sq km, or acres only, apparently at random.
    • I consistently use acres (ha) for area (except for the infobox apparently), feet (m) for elevation, and miles (km) for distance. The Forest Service uses acres everywhere, so I adopted that in this article and others. Another user changed what's displayed in the management section. The ranger district areas (that the Forest Service provides) aren't specific acreages (which I can't find) but estimates, so estimating square miles from this can be problematic. I think the aformentioned user eliminated the converted areas for 400,000 acres in its latter two instances because it was previously mentioned in the same sentence. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the U.S. acres are also used for area much more regularly than square miles, but maybe a conversion to km2 than hectares would be more appropriate?
  • "Most of Boise National Forest is underlain by the Idaho Batholith and includes parts of the Boise, Salmon River, and West mountain ranges," Presumably Boise rather than the batholith includes mountain ranges, but not clearly expressed.
    • Both the forest and the batholith include the mountain ranges. Clarified. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the forest supervisor, or the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz." Presentism - should say as of date.
  • The meaning of administered area is obvious, but what is the proclaimed area?
    • Are you looking for more than what's stated in the second to last sentence of the first paragraph of the management section? Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This says that the proclaimed area is set by Congress. Is this just a maximum and the forestry service can choose what areas it actually protects? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I changed some of the wording in the management section. The second paragraph actually details what you're asking. Congress sets the proclaimed area boundaries, but since numerous forests border each other individual forests manage parts of other forests outside of their own proclaimed boundaries. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An estimated 76 percent of Boise National Forest is forest, which is considered to be land that is capable of supporting trees on at least 50 percent of its area." Is this definition correct? It would mean that vast areas which have been cleared for agriculture and are still capable of supporting trees are still forest.
    • This seems to be a Forest Service definition, which I added. Since there are not agricultural areas or any other similarly developed areas in national forests this wouldn't be a problem with this definition. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of these natural lakes are tarns created by alpine glaciers during the Pleistocene." I cannot see where the source supports this.
  • "Average snowfall ranges from 55 to 70 inches (140 to 180 cm), where greater amounts occur at higher elevations." This is unclear. Average at lower latitudes and greater at higher ones?
    • Please clarify. I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is 55-70 the average over the whole area, or just at lower elevations, or just at higher elevations? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first people entered Idaho near the end of the last ice age at the end of the Pleistocene about 13,000 years ago. A change of climate around 7000 years ago dried up much of the Great Basin forcing the Shoshone people northward into the mountainous areas of central Idaho." This implies continuous occupation for 13,000, which is very unlikely, and the source looks to me dated and carelessly worded. It states that there has been human occupation for 12-15,000 years, but then refers to semi-nomadic people entering Idaho 13,000 years ago. This would probably have been temporary and short term (a leading text book argues that similar evidence in England at this time was the result of occupation by one group for a short period). Human occupation of Idaho is (I assume) unlikely during the Younger Dryas ice age 11-12,000 years ago.
    • I understand what you are saying and may need to look into this further. However, Idaho was largely spared in recent ice ages with continental glaciers only in extreme northern Idaho, far from Boise National Forest, along with significant alpine glaciation elsewhere. See this map as an example. The Great Basin extend into southern Idaho, so it's possible it was continuously inhabited. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This paper suggests that the Younger Dryas did not affect North America as much as Europe. However, if Idaho was like England (and it sounds similar but with much colder winters) there was probably no permanent occupation before the start of the Holocene c. 11,500 years ago, just a few transient campsites of people based further south and occasionally following prey animals north. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded so that there shouldn't be any confusion now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A first rate article. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although I still have a couple of minor quibbles.
  • "the top forest official, is Cecilia Seesholtz, who has been in that position since 2008" This is still presentism, as it will become outdated when she moves on. It should say the top official as of 2015.
  • "human habitation up to 15,000 years ago". "up to" is strictly correct as it is the excavator's view, but as the figure is widely doubted by other archaeologists I would prefer 10-15,000 years ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant to do exactly this but forgot. Will do. Thanks Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dr. Blofeld[edit]

I'll give this a good look tomorrow. Initially the content seems to all be there but some of the sections look in a backwards order. History and geography and climate I believe belong further up before flora and fauna for a start, not to mention management needing to be moved nearer the bottom, probably before or ever after recreation last. Forest and the other history ought really to be merged and sub split.♦ Dr. Blofeld 23:15, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The original order I had the article in was in that of the other national forest FAs. There are a few sections in the the order that you put the article in that seem really out of place. I think the start of the history section should be as it originally was with "forest history" which is distinct from the human history (things that happened within or around the forest, but not necessarily of direct relevance to the history of the forest itself), which could be a subsection within history. Or alternatively the last two paragraphs could be a subsection title "U.S. Forest Service" or something similar. The management section should immediately follow history since it is more relevant to that section than the others and provides a bridge between them. From there the everything else is fine geography & geology, climate, natural resources, recreation. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, move it back then if you must. It makes very little sense having history split into different sections at opposite ends of the article. History is history. I was going to to try to work towards supporting this but I don't think I will now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comments[edit]

  • I see Ian mentioned it about on 1/20, but this still needs a source review and spot-check. I have requested one here. --Laser brain (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia[edit]

Oppose; the prose needs a significant amount of basic work. These are samples only, not intended to be comprehensive, but suggestive that a thorough copyedit by an independent editor is needed:

  • "Temperatures in Boise National Forest are generally warm to hot during the summer with high temperatures often ranging from 80 to 90 °F (27 to 32 °C) throughout the forest.
    • What does "throughout the forest" add? In fact, what does "warm to hot" add? A simpler construct would be something like: Temperatures in Boise National Forest are between <whatever> in the summer, followed by a similar statement for the winter (to avoid having the paragraph bounce around as it does).
      • I clarified this. I understand what you are saying about "throughout the forest," but see more below. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lower elevations can experience temperatures in excess over 100 °F (38 °C) during the summer.
    • In excess over? And again, a simpler construct would be something like, temperatures may exceed <whatever> in the summer, and then tell us something about how often that happens or how common it is.
      • Fixed this, but I don't have any specifics about how often this occurs. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the winter average temperatures are between 29 and 9 °F (−2 and −13 °C).
    • An average is a number, not a range. What does this range depend upon-- that is, what is varying in this average?
      • Across such a large area and difference in elevation average temperature is a range. I combined this with the first comment above. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Idaho’s mountain ranges can block cold Arctic air from moving into the area in the winter, but when it does, these cold air masses can stagnate in the Snake and Salmon river valleys, enabling very cold temperatures to persist.
    • There's a curly quote in Idaho's ... please review MOS:QUOTE, and this makes me wonder if a MOS review has been done. "Ranges can block air ... but when it does" ... tense doesn't match (basic grammatical issue).
      • I know about this issue but had trouble seeing them. I think I've fixed all of them now. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summer and fall are generally dry, while intense short-duration thunderstorms often occur in late spring and early summer as moisture from the Gulf of Mexico interacts with warm temperatures and steep topography.
    • The topography comment is hanging there, unexplained.
  • Warm, moist air from the Pacific Ocean often brings rain at lower elevations in addition to snowfall throughout the forest during the winter.
    • Again, unsure what "throughout the forest" adds-- the prose is often unnecessarily convoluted and stilted.
      • In this instance I think "throughout the forest" is necessary because it distinguishes something that occurs in a specific part of the forest at a specific time (rain) from something that is applicable to the entire forest at that same time (snow). If you have a better way of explaining this please let me know. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand fir and western larch can be found in the northern part of the forest where there are moister conditions. Quaking aspen, a deciduous tree, can be found in stands among conifers throughout the forest at elevations above 5,000 feet (1,500 m).
    • Repetitive: "can be found", "can be found", and "throughtout the forest" again (an audit of the entire article might be helpful). Unnecessarily convoluted, for example, simpler: Grand fir and western larch grow in the moister conditions of the northern part of the forest, and Quaking aspen, a decidious tree, grows above 5000 ft ...
  • Understory vegetation can be sparse but include grasses,
    • Grammar again, includes ...
      • Corrected. "Vegetation" can be conceived and used a plural since "vegetations" is rarely ever used in modern English. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the prose needs independent eyes, and this is only based on wherever I happened to glance (not a thorough check); this prose should not have gained support at FAC, and most of what I have pointed out has been present in the article for years.

But, there are problems beyond just prose: also MOS and sourcing issues.

  • What makes peakbagger.com a reliable source? The author says he gathered the data as a child, and admits it has errors.[4]
    • I have never found the information on Peakbagger to be incorrrect. That said, this was meant a placeholder until I got better sources, but I never realized I didn't fix this. Will do in the next day or two. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A MOS review is needed (see curly quote mention above, and WP:MOSNUM, sample ... "has seven chairlifts and 53 runs"
    • For this seven should be 7 if the terms are directly directly comparable, which I don't necessarily think they are. But I've changed it (and other similar instances) anyway. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does this statement need five sources? The Ponderosa Pine Byway passes over Arrowrock Reservoir and through Idaho City and Lowman, where it connects with the Wildlife Canyon Byway. North and east of Lowman the byway partially follows the South Fork of the Payette River before ascending to the 7,037-foot (2,145 m) Banner Creek Summit at the forest's boundary with Salmon-Challis National Forest.[1][2][3][4][5]
    • The first two sources are applicable to, and necessary for, the paragraph as a whole. Of the last three, the USGS map is needed to verify the Boise NF's border with Salmon-Challis NF is at Banner Summit and one of the other two is needed for the elevation of Banner Summit. Thus, I have eliminated the NGS reference since the elevation is covered by the Idaho Transportation Department reference. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing puncutation: The forest's Trinity Mountain Recreation Area includes the highest drivable (4-wheel drive recommended) road in Idaho, which ascends to the Trinity Mountain Lookout at an elevation of over 9,400 feet (2,900 m)[1] One of the forest's ..

References

  1. ^ a b "Boise National Forest Visitor Guide" (Document). U.S. Forest Service. {{cite document}}: Unknown parameter |accessdate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archivedate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |archiveurl= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |url= ignored (help)
  2. ^ "Taking the Scenic Route". Idaho Department of Transportation. 2009. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 26, 2014. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  3. ^ "Banner Creek Summit". Idaho Transportation Department. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
  4. ^ "National Elevation Dataset". USGS. Retrieved June 27, 2013.
  5. ^ Banner Summit (Map). 1:24000. USGS 7.5'. USGS. 1972.

I suggest withdrawal, since at almost two months in, it is apparent that previous supporters of this FAC did not engage WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your review, but I don't think withdrawal is necessary. I would encourage you comment further on the article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and that you addressed these items (which I haven't checked), but I do not intend to review further. My list was of samples only, and a full audit of sourcing and an independent copyedit is needed. I would be pleased to see a restart of this FAC, so that editors who previously supported can explain why. This FAC has sat here for a very long time and with the deficiencies I identified, should not have gained support. I wish you the best of luck here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 21 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Trans-Europe Express (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aria1561 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the best and most critically acclaimed electronic/experimental albums ever made. Trans-Europe Express is a gem in the music industry that truly defined electronic music as a whole. It helped advance the genre with its experimental style and long-lasting legacy. This article is already a certified good article and I feel that it should be promoted to an FA. Aria1561 (talk) 04:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aria, you seem to have made only a few edits to this article. Have you informed the article’s main editors of this nomination per FAC instructions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Ian. Nominator has made no contributions to the article.—indopug (talk) 09:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Scanning the article itself, I think the prose could use some polishing, irrespective of the procedural issue. On the latter point, there's a very practical reason for wanting the main editors involved in a FAC nomination, namely that when you put an article up for review you take responsibility for fielding comments and criticism re. its prose, structure, image licensing, comprehensiveness and referencing, and it’s difficult to cover all that if you've had little involvement with the article's development, or you're not being supported by those who have. The upshot is that the nom appears premature, so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tezero (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of getting something together for Sonic's 25th anniversary a year and a half from now, I've brought what was a C-class article (and failed as a GAN by someone before I showed up) to GA and gotten a copyedit done, and here's the final step. One of perhaps only a single-digit number of games in its series still held in high esteem by critics, Sonic 1 is also notable in retrospect for some unusual design choices that would quickly be changed in later games, such as a very small cast of characters (don't worry, Espio, Chip, Vanilla, and Shade, we still love you), the lack of the famous "spin dash" move, the presence of only six Chaos Emeralds, and generally slower, somewhat cramped level design, more in the vein of a traditional platformer. It's not one of my favorites, but it's a darling of early-'90s pop-culture nostalgiacs and jaded, sneering game journalists and as such deserves to be written about to the highest standard possible. Thanks for your attention. Tezero (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. This is a nice start on this important topic, but it omits far too many important sources to satisfy the well-researched criteria. These sources include Console Wars by Blake Harris, The History of Sonic from French publisher Pix'n Love (the book is available in English), Retro Gamer Issue 100, which contains a "Making Of" with a Yuji Naka interview, and Sega Mega Drive/Genesis: Collected Works, which has interviews with Naka and Oshima.
Furthermore, the article is not quite there yet on comprehensiveness grounds either. There is nothing on SOA's role in changing the design of the Sonic character, nothing on the inspiration for the aesthetics of the stages (this information does exist), and nothing on the market positioning and marketing campaign in North America, about which much has been written as well. Also, a game with as large an effect on the industry as this, which basically put Sega on the map as a console developer, deserves more than two tiny paragraphs on its impact. There is a fine skeleton here, but it needs to be fleshed out for FA status. Indrian (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you feel that way, Indrian. Could you recommend any sources for the topics in the latter paragraph? Would they all be covered in the above? Tezero (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you could get your hands on the majority of those sources, they should pretty comprehensively cover the development, launch, and marketing of the game. There is not a huge amount of additional development info on the game out there, so I am not expecting to see too much more, but most of the sources above include interviews with Naka and/or Oshima that fill in some gaps. Console Wars discusses the impact SOA had on the Sonic character himself, which I think needs to be mentioned briefly. For many video game articles, the marketing side is not necessarily as important, but because much of Sega's Genesis strategy in 1991 hinged on Sonic, there are some important points to cover. Again, much of that is covered in Console Wars.
Going through the history of the article, I noticed that other than copy editing, very little work was done to improve the article after the GA review in October. While the article as it stands really is a nice little piece, the standards for FA are meant to be tougher than GA, and an article is rarely ready to make the leap from one level to the next without a great deal of additional work put in. I fully believe you can get this article up to FA status, but it will require significant expansion of certain sections of the article. Good luck! Indrian (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) Sorry, didn't mean to snap back too hard. I probably should've sought a peer review for this; it was likely that some recent ones of mine hadn't gotten any comments so I was feeling discouraged about the process. I merely wanted to let you know that, although I agree this article could use expansion, FA having tighter criteria than GA isn't at all something I'm unaware of - in fact, the peer review of one article caused me to spend many hours scouring online archives and obscure websites for usable sources after its GAN. I see no reason I can't continue that here, especially if the most important extraneous sources are already listed for me. Tezero (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you added the above just as I was deleting my comment. Apology accepted. I was honestly not aware you had done so many FAs (I see your name at the VG project, but I don't really pay attention to who is doing what all that much), so it really was just meant as some friendly advice. I certainly meant no offense. Indrian (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To update, I've added a decent amount from the Retro Gamer source, although there's more to sift through, and I now have access to all three of the other sources you asked for. Tezero (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indrian, it turns out the scans of the History of Sonic book are too low-res to read, while the Google Books upload of Console Wars locks out the part about Sonic 1's development and the physical copy I requested from the library, it turns out, still has another hold to go through. I have, however, found an IGN article that's been useful for filling in a few more details, and you've mentioned owning Collected Works. If you provide a few details from that, can we move forward? I doubt much is missing at present. Tezero (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be having no problem reading lengthy excerpts from the History of Sonic on Amazon, Tezero. (BTW, since you just got Sonic 3 up to GA status, you might be interested in what the book has to say about that game, including a higher sales figure of 1.8 million).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll take a look at that. Tezero (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress, Tezero? The book seems to have some interesting material about how Naka's work on Ghouls N' Ghosts influenced the game, Yasuhara created the 360 degree loops, ect. which should probably be included. (In the case of Sonic 3 and Sonic & Knuckles, you really should make clear that the McDonald's promotion was the main reason the games were split.) I will try to add anything useful in Console Wars when I have some time, as both Indrian and I have the book. But let's try to establish what, exactly, this article must have to at least meet our FA standards. Indrian, were you saying that information on the origins of all six of the zones is out there? If so, I haven't seen it, not that I claim any sort of expertise on this game's development. Tezero, another thing you really should do is watch the whole GameTap documentary (portions of which are used in this very article), which actually covered most of the Console Wars stuff (i.e. Madeline Shroeder's role in Sonic's redesign) back in 2009.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely coming along, but as Times says, you should get some material from The Complete History of Sonic in there, which does seem to be largely accessible through Amazon. Also, I would not use that IGN article as it is just summarizing information from Console Wars. A source covering a source is not particularly high quality and should be avoided unless the original source is actually lost. Indrian (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but after three weeks we should be seeing more commentary and support for promotion; plainly that isn't happening as yet, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Siege of Kehl (1796–97)[edit]

Nominator(s): auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Siege of Kehl from 1796–1797. This siege, which the Austrians concluded successfully, ended the Rhine Campaign of 1796, part of the War of the First Coalition. The article has been through GA and A class review in the Military History Project. It seems to meet all the criterion and I would appreciate your comments. I forgot to say, also, that I've included the alt text; as of today, all the links are good; there is one dab link to the dab page for the other battles at same location. And as of today also there were no dupes. auntieruth (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Rhein-Karte.png: what is the source of the data represented by this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the question. What is the source the artist used to make the map? IDK. But I have compared it to other maps of the Rhine and it matches them. Do you want those sources? auntieruth (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- not sure why this hasn't attracted more commentary, especially after its successful MilHist ACR, but it's plainly not going anywhere. Given the dearth of feedback, Ruth, feel free to re-nom before the usual two-week waiting period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Oliver Evans[edit]

Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A super interesting article written by me that attracted not much commentary last time, but I promise for those willing to read a roller-coaster ride through the life of an eccentric and today little-known Delaware engineer who invented the automated flour mill, the high-pressure steam engine and disputably the first auto-mobile in America. Unus Multorum (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Boat names should generally be italicized
  • captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Oliver_Evans_Signature.svg: what is the copyright status of the original signature? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Resolved: Periods added, boat names italicized, image source for the original signature added to the image description. Unus Multorum (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Wehwalt
Lede
  • "he then worked" strike "then", unneeded
  • If he's generally credited with the first American automobile, isn't that significant enough that it should be in the lede paragraph?
Early life
  • "Oliver was the fifth of eleven children; he had four sisters and seven brothers" four sisters, seven brothers, plus Oliver himself equals twelve.
  • "Relatively little else" I'm not seeing the nuance that "relatively" adds, and would cut the word.
  • " when it premièred in 1778" premièred may be too fancy a word. Went into use?
  • "which formed the bed" I would cut.
  • " but the design was not pursued due to a perceived lack of commercial opportunity" a bit involved, perhaps "but could find no financial backing". I might move this sentence to the end of the paragraph as otherwise the word "invention" in the next is ambiguous.
  • "now in great demand" most likely should be "then in great demand"
  • Was a patent granted for the card machine? I imagine the patent applied for would have been granted by Delaware?
  • "That year, aged 23, Evans married Sarah Tomlinson, daughter of a local farmer, in Old Swedes' Episcopal Church in Wilmington." Evans was born in 1755, and the last year spoken of was 1783.
    • Done, these simple maths errors I should have noticed long before now... Unus Multorum (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Developing etc.
  • "Two of his elder brothers purchased from their father part of the Newport farm estate and intended to start a mill there" This needs simplification. We don't see that there's a connection between the previous sentence and this until well into it, and the reader may need to go back. I would simply say that "Two of his brothers intended to start a mill in Newport" and then go on with the dash and the rest of the sentence as before. At some point it might be worth mentioning the increasing industrialization of northern Delaware.
  • "Furthermore ... In addition" I would not use both in the same paragraph.
  • "over the next half-decade" What happened to the brothers's mill? Looking down, I see two paragraphs ahead it was a conventional design at first. I would try to consolidate the initial mentions of the brothers's mill, then go on to the next half decade. At present, it is a bit disjointed. Also, the last time reference was "the 1780s" making the "next half-decade" a bit imprecise.
  • "onerous" possibly "labor-intensive"
  • "The use of chains of buckets to raise water was a Roman technology and used " double use of use/used, and I think you need a "had been" before used.
  • "needing cooling" and drying? After all, it was not called a cooling floor ...
  • " would cause the rake rotations to slowly move flour towards central chutes, which would take the flour down to be sifted" The repetition of "rake". Possibly "would slowly move the flour towards central chutes, from which the material would be sifted.
  • " removed manual intervention and meant the elimination of most entry points for flour contamination" maybe "saved much labor and reduced the opportunity for contamination"
  • "that requiring no humans" grammar
  • "who struggled to see the potential of Evans's ideas" it doesn't sound like they struggled very hard. Maybe "who saw little potential in Evans's ideas".
  • "across the eastern states" This does not serve to disambiguate, as they all were in the east at the time.
  • "In these years Evans finished constructing the first fully automated flour mill based on his perfected designs, and the Evans brothers " Which years? And was this the brothers mill? That would explain why the brothers had an interest in the process, but it's unclear.
  • "One difficulty was that Evans lacked patience coupled with a" I would rephrase as "Evans lacked patience and had a ..." The difficulty (for Evans) should be clear to the reader without you needing to point it out.
  • "after it was fully automated" You have not mentioned this. Where did he get the money for the conversion?
  • "Disbelief" is this the proper word? Maybe "This conviction".
  • "it proved a success" What does "it" refer to?
  • "He would also in that year add" I use "would" to refer to later in the past as well, but the year seems tightly bounded here. We're talking about 1789. Suggest "He added" The word "designs" appears twice in the sentence, and the context of the second use is a bit unclear.
  • "Evans moved to Wilmington " I would toss in a "from Newport" or the equivalent. You have not mentioned his residence in a while.
  • "His inventions were given" the word "his" is used to refer to two different people in the same sentence, which is usually going to get you comments from reviewers.
  • You are not consistent between US and U.S.
  • The actual jobs of the three patent examiners might be worth mentioning. State, War, and AG, as I recall.

Writer etc.

  • " he saw Evans's technology at work in the mills there" where?
  • "millers desiring to construct machinery for their mills, as well as promoting his automated mill designs" some use for "mill" synonyms.
  • Why is Thomas Ellicott redlinked when Jonathan Ellicott was not?
  • "Evans soon received influential interest in his book" Is this phrase really needed? The subscribers whom you list, I think, are prominent enough that this seems redundant.
  • Did Evans invent the toggle joint? If I recall correctly, in my researches on Franklin Peale, he found toggle joint technology in use in Europe in 1833.

Developing

  • I'd give the reader a brief thumbnail sketch of the development of the steam engine in Britain, with a focus on Watt.
  • You link Watt twice in about five sentences. I would not really describe him as a contemporary, as he retired in 1800. He finished most of his work about as Evans was getting started.
  • "(the design of which Evans had some involvement)" huh?
  • "whilst" generally not used in the US, and Evans was American.
  • Did Evans's interest in steam engines have anything to do with the fact that the Watt/Boulton patent had just run out?
  • "—though Evans persisted" Not sure what this is contrasting to.
  • The prose is starting to feel a little less polished than earlier. You might want to go over this and following sections.
  • "safely operate a high-pressures" This seems a bit muddled. Possibly "safely contain high-pressure steam" if that would be accurate.
  • "making it practical to make locomotives and steamboats" double use. Perhaps, "making locomotives and steamboats practical"
  • "a couple of" a bit informal, go with "two". "plus it ..." will also get you informality comments.

Oruktor

  • Contract should not be used as a verb.
More later. My biggest complaint re the article is a tendency to use ten words where five will do, but I'm prone to that myself. You might want to watch out for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steam

  • "no paying stockholders to launch it," perhaps "no investors to fund it".
  • It's "The Franklin Institute", so the "the" should be capped and part of the link.
Mars
  • "improvised tools and workers," improvised workers?
  • "Soho Foundry" I think you'll find it was the Soho Manufactury. And to my knowledge, they did not build steam engines there. Boulton/Watt engineers usually constructed them on site using parts many of which were produced to specifications by blacksmiths near to the installation.
  • "large steam engine of its own to grind materials and work wrought iron" The engine did this or did the machines powered by it?
  • "In one example where" replace with "When"
Pittsburgh
  • "exporting". As they were not leaving the country, suggest "sending"
  • Pittsburgh is linked and given its state name on its second usage (disregarding its use as part of a company title)
  • "amongst" "among" is much more common in the US.
  • "put ... offside" not a US idiom. Suggest "alienated" instead.
  • "and ultimately reduced his claim against Robinson to $1,000" I imagine the jury did this, but the long separation between subject and clause is causing issues here.
  • "Patent Act of 1836" probably should not be italicized.
  • "didn't get far" you shouldn't use contractions and it's a bit informal, suggest a more formal phrase
  • "would turn out" I think you want "turned out" without the "would" here.
Legacy
  • I'm not sure i like "undoubtedly" in a legacy section. Persuade the reader, don't hit hit him over the head.
  • "Evans'" not consistent with "Evans's" found elsewhere. (at least 3x in this sectio
  • "and within a generation the majority of bread consumption shifted from the home-made to store-bought" This is a bit problematical "majority of bread consumption?" perhaps "and within a generation the majority of bread produced was store-bought rather than homemade".
  • Consecutive sentences begin with "And". Consecutive paragraphs begin in "And yet"
That's it for this run. I'll read it again when you've finished this.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- appreciate the effort the nominator is making to address the comments so far but we're over three weeks into this nom and still have outstanding points from just one review; best I think if the work continues outside the FAC process as we're a long way from achieving the necessary commentary and support for promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [9].[reply]

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly a month, I hope it won't happen again. Thank you. Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero[edit]

  • Support per previous FACs; I feel that the article has been sufficiently kept up with what I saw FA-fit about it previously and improved in the prose area besides. Tezero (talk) 18:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Karanacs[edit]

Oppose for now. I think this is a good start towards FAC, but it's not quite there.

  • The inspiration and theme paragraphs are very similar. Can the first two sections be combined?
  • Recording and inspiration is similar to a background section. Composition and theme is more specific, we first have Leto's thoughts and then critics' thoughts on the song.
  • Is it really necessary to mention the single was offered for 69 cents? This statement isn't put into any kind of context (low? high? normal? price).
  • That sentence mentions that the "song was put on sale". It's part of the promotion of the song so it suits in the release section.
  • (talk page stalker) It should probably be removed per WP:NOPRICES: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The currently source is the band's site. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Thanks for posting that.--Earthh (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really important to note that it was offered free from iTunes - especially since we don't know why?
  • Again, it's part of the promotion and suits in that section.
  • The paragraph with the release and peak dates in Europe IMO seems to overdo the dates. Do we need to know exactly what week for all of this, or is it sufficient to say November - January for most of it, and then note that it was later in a few countries?
  • Removed where possible. Dates are necessary for this kind of section, see examples at featured articles like this and this.
  • For the critical reception section, please make sure that every quote has a citation at the end of the sentence - even if that means that two sentences in a row have the same citation.
  • Overcite does not apply to quotations. Each quotation needs a citation at the end of its sentence. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabriel Yuji, this has nothing to do with this situation. Or am I missing something?--Earthh (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm... he is requiring a source after every quote, and you said it's overkill. In fact it's fine because MINREF says you should use inline citations after a direct quotation. And a nutshell is better than an essay. Am I missing something? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using inline citations after every quote. From WP:REPCITE, "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."--Earthh (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does any critic compare the piano version to the other version?
  • It's the same song, just a different way of performing it.
  • I'm wavering on whether or not there are too many quotes in the article. On the one hand, it's obviously a very personal song to Leto, so it's important that we have his perspective. On the other hand, I'm a little concerned that parts of it are too much Leto's perspective (or things cited to the band's webpage) and not enough 3rd-party analysis. Then, when criticism is addressed, it is almost entirely quotes from the reviewers strung together.
  • There's very little cited to the band's webpages; you should consider that Leto is the writer, producer, performer of the song and also director of its short film. Every section, in its context, has 3rd-party sources.
  • I understand that Leto is the key figure in this saga...however, the point of the article is not to give HIS perspective, but to give the perspectives of third party sources. If we rely so heavily on quotes from Leto and or paraphrases of what Leto thinks of things, then we are just regurgitating his opinion. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mean that we should not have the author's perspective on his work? That is totally incorrect. In the article we first have Leto's thoughts on the inspiration and theme of the song, followed by analysis and interpretations by third-party sources, so we are not "just regurgitating" the author's opinion. The same thing is done in the sections related to the music video.--Earthh (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karanacs, do you have any further arguments?--Earthh (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no citation for this sentence: From the Hollywood Hills to Hollywood Boulevard, the short film captures the struggle of entertainers from the streets to the big screen.
  • Sourced. Karanacs, please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I think we probably have an enough of a difference of opinion here that its unlikely either will sway the other. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead[edit]

Support. I opposed the first nomination, and the article has been improved since then. Here are some minor notes:

  • Loudwire needs to be italicized in the reference templates.
  • Can you merge the second and third paragraph from the lead?
  • Credits adapted from... should be at the start of 'Credits and personnel'.
That's all from me. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for your support, Retrohead.--Earthh (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Oppose for now

  • When a song is released as a promotional single and later as a single, the earliest single release date should be used in infobox (I gather from this that it is October 25, 2013)
  • Fixed.
  • The lead should mention at least some chart positions
  • A generic image of Los Angeles isn't particularly beneficial. Maybe instead include Jared Leto himself.
  • That image is very similar to a framing of the video. Should I remove it?
  • Add a comma after "filming" in "After filming Leto talked"
  • Done.
  • Six images in one spot is overkill, just use one or two pics for one spot.
  • Done.
  • For nominations lost, include who won (i.e. MTV VMA for best cinematography went to Beyoncé's "Pretty Hurts")
  • Done.
  • Is "massive" in "The set's massive video screen" the most encyclopedic word choice?
  • Removed.
  • "AllAccess.com" should read "All Access"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • PopCrush, Artistdirect, and Discogs are not reliables source per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
  • I've removed PopCrush and Artistdirect. Discogs is the only available sources that cites promotional singles. Should I remove that reference?
  • Done.
  • Not sure if London Evening Standard, Nottingham Post, "Lowdown", "LA Music Blog", or "RumorFix" are the best sources to use
  • They appear in the reception sections (except RumorFix), there's nothing wrong with their use. RumorFix is founded by Jay McGraw, that source is simply an update on the filming of the video.
  • "Hollywood Life" and "Entertainmentwise" are also unreliable
  • Hollywood Life is a subsidiary of Movieline, owned by PMC. Entertainment Wise is owned by Giant Digital, the parent company of Gigwise. They both seem to be reliable.
  • Don't be fooled; parent company doesn't automatically indicate reliability. Gigwise isn't reliable either, and Hollywoodlife is a gossip site. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Thanks for your clarification.
  • Very inconsistent use of publishers (or lack thereof)- either use them for all or none
  • According to {{cite web}}, the publisher parameter should not be used for magazines and newspapers.
  • In that case, remove publishers from references to meet with FA criterion 2c: "consistently formatted inline citations". Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad article, Earthh, but isn't (yet) FA-worthy. Best of luck improving the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, SNUGGUMS. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. See my above responses. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment[edit]

While I can see the nominator has made the effort to address reviewer comments, we're over a month into the nomination and clearly have a way to go to achieve consensus to promote. I'll therefore be archiving this shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process before a potential renomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (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 archived by Graham Beards via FACBot (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Joseph Merrick[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a deformed Englishman who lived in Victorian times. I note that the good article assessment was all the way back in 2010, so this article is mature enough. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and recommend withdrawal -- A worthy article but too many statements/paragraphs are uncited; these need to be dealt with before FAC. Also I see several quotes that really should be attributed inline. Prose-wise I think it would benefit from a good copyeditor's hand. On a more minor (structural) point, the lead section shouldn't need to be six paragraphs. Lastly, on a procedural note, it looks like the nominator has only made one edit to the article -- per FAC instructions, while you don't have to be prime editor of the article to nominate here, you do in future need to let the main editors know when the nomination is made. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this nom was not transcluded to the FAC page until today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Enamorada de Ti[edit]

Nominator(s): .jonatalk 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Enamorada de Ti is a remix album by American singer Selena, released in April 2012, 17 years after her death. It peaked at number one on the US Billboard Top Latin Albums and Latin Pop Albums chart. The article went through GOCE back in 2012 by GOCE member Stfg. Since then it has underwent several revisions by users and I recently revisited the article to bring it up to FA worthiness as well as replacing dead urls with archival versions. I hope to bring the article to FA status for Selena's 20th anniversary of her murder. Best, .jonatalk 21:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

Suggest withdrawal. This is a good start, but based on a spotcheck of only two sources, there is enough wrong here that this article should be put through Good article reassessment for improvements or delisting GA, before re-approaching FAC. If may have been a good article several years ago (link), but I don't believe it meets WIAGA now. (@Curly Turkey:)

I am pleased to not find copyvio via direct translation of Spanish sources in the two sources I checked, but it appears that in trying to rephrase Spanish sources to English, original research and text not verified by sources has been introduced.

I do not intend to review the full article: these are samples only.

1a, Prose, grammar: there is no such phrase as Tus Desprecius in Spanish-- something is wrong there.

Sourcing:

  1. About.com is not usually a reliable source, depending on the "expert" doing the writing (anyone can write for about.com). This about.com author bio page on Carlos Quintana is unconvincing; the man loves Latin music, has website experience, and teaches dance.
  2. This site, conciertos en bolivia, is a blog, with no information given about the author. Yet the source is listed in article references as Jose Gallegos (27 May 2011). "Quiero mantener vivo el talento de mi hermana". La Prensa. Retrieved 8 June 2011. Where did the Gallego and La Prensa come from? These first two sources are cited extensively: if we don't have more convincing critical review of this album, should this article be featured?
  3. I can find nothing on generaccion's website to indicate reliability.
  4. What is this? I'm getting some deadlink gobbledeegook.
  5. I can't find a page on popcrush.com to assess reliability (but it did crash my browser with an "unresponsive plugin" notice).
Spotcheck on accurate representation of sources: I read much slower in Spanish than in English, but I am unable to verify these phrases from the sources-- these are samples only, not intended to be comprehensive:
  1. "... after performing to an enthusiastic crowd in Bolivia ... "
  2. "Their aim was to update Selena's music for the modern music industry."
  3. The album's central themes would be Abraham's influence on his children's love of music, and bringing Selena's music "back to life".
  4. Banda commented that the track blended Tejano cumbia and electronic sounds, and he praised its new guitar chords (referring to the song "Ya no").
Translation issues?
  • "Banda was more positive, listing them as recommended tracks that he found to be reminiscent of live Selena recordings."
    • Source says: Estos son los temas estrictamente recomendados para escuchar, ahí se aprecia la voz de Selena tal cual estuviera cantando en vivo.
      • These ... are strictly recommended listening, where one can appreciate Selena's voice just as if she were singing live. (no mention of recordings).
These sorts of issues are evident throughout. It is difficult to strike a balance of avoiding copyio while providing a translation accurate to the sources; this article is not there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 12 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]

One Son[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the twelfth episode of the sixth season of the American sci-fi series The X-Files. It features the end of the long-running arc about the shadowy Syndicate, and was quite an important episode for the series. This article was promoted to GA in 2010 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Son/GA1), and since my first edit back in 2011, it has substantially been revised, expanded, and reorganized ([13]). Furthermore, it has been copy-edited by Beth.Snyder6 ([14]), JudyCS ([15]), and I've made sure to go through it every now and then and clean up anything that I think is awkward. I think it looks quite good, and I believe it is ready for the next step.--20:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Gen. Quon (Talk)

Lede comments
  • '"One Son" is the twelfth episode of the sixth season of the American science fiction television' - the double use of "of" was somewhat jarring to me. Firt "of" could be replaced with "from"
  • I believe the first sentence could be split at the comma: "The episode first aired".
  • Why repeat the name of the episode in the second sentence? It could easily be replaced with "It", the antecedent has been sufficiently established.
  • "The episode was well received by critics, who applauded the way the Syndicate's story arc was wrapped up, although others felt the resolution was too simplistic." - I'm a fan of sequential plots. Shouldn't this be at the end of the lede. The critics (or atleast most critics) didn't announce their thoughts on the episode until after it aired.
  • 'who work on cases linked to the paranormal called "X-Files".' this seemed jarring to me. Perhaps, 'who work on cases called "X Files"—those deemed "unsolvable" by the FBI, usually dealing with the paranormal.' or something similar.
  • "her ex-husband the Smoking Man (William B. Davis)" should be "her ex-husband, the Smoking Man (William B. Davis),"
  • "the alien conspiracy" - which alien conspiracy? this one? (The cuteness is to say this: could be clarified)
    It's Wikilinked. I feel it would take up waaaaaayy too much space to expand it fully, but I did add "...to take over the Earth".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption in the infobox: "Episode co-writer Frank Spotnitz cited this visual effect as one that did not please him." This is irrelevant. You can either remove it or put it in a note. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 23:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Ehh, I don't think it's irrelevant. I'm trying to explain to the reader why the image is important; I'm trying to cover it's "Purpose of Use".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but after three weeks we're a long way off from achieving sufficient commentary to declare a consensus for promotion, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 14 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Children of Mana[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Mana was an attempt by Square Enix to revitalize a series of games that had produced what many felt were some of the best RPGs ever made for the SNES- Secret of Mana and Seiken Densetsu 3. Turns out, attaching a weak plot to a complete shift in gameplay style didn't have the effect they'd hoped for, and this first of three successive titles in the Mana series got only middling reviews. As a part of my drive to get all of the articles on Mana articles up to GA+, I've recently gotten this to GA, and following in the footsteps of Secret of Mana from this past Fall I'm going to try to get it through FAC. As a Nintendo DS game, and as a lackluster part of a three-game series, it hasn't gotten as much retrospective attention by critics as other games, but I think this is a solid little article—hopefully reviewers won't find much objectionable about it. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Tezero[edit]

Looks interesting; maybe I've got another one for the large pile of JRPGs I still need to play. Reminds me of the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles games and the Digimon RPGs. Anyway, a review I've promised in exchange for my billionth Sonic GAN, so here I go:

  • "Each of the character options have different numerical attributes, representing their different skills with weapons or magic" - could you give an example of how this might manifest? Also, I don't know the class system or the available classes yet - is it similar to the one in Final Fantasy III or something?
  • Can you go back to dungeon floors you've already been to?
  • "where the boss monster lies" - is the boss always a "monster"? Is it always the same monster? If not, what monsters can it be?
  • "the number of floors can increase" - to a set number? Are the dungeon floors randomly generated?
  • "bow & arrow" - why the ampersand?
  • "wield one or two weapons at a time" - perhaps not, but is there any reason you'd only want to wield one? Is it like the long-held (though, IIRC, untrue) idea that in Pokémon you only get STAB (an attack boost from using an attack of your Pokémon's type) if your Pokémon is single-typed? Also, can you switch between the two at will? Must they recharge? Can you perform a "generic", non-weapon attack?
  • Overall, some parts of Gameplay seem a bit vague - remember, you can cite the manual, in-game text, or - as a last resort - even the game itself if you need to include some extra details for a complete understanding of the gameplay.
  • "Setting" section - consider adding "and characters" or changing to "Premise"
  • Didn't notice anything objectionable in Story, so I'll leave off there.

Tezero (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responding below, in order:
  • Reworked it; it's really just a rating from 1-5 on magic, weapons, HP, and MP. There's no classes, which is why the article doesn't mention classes- the only difference between the characters is their relative rankings in those four attributes.
  • No, specified
  • Monster; changes depending on what quest you're doing (now specified when I talk about side quests); that seems like gameguide material (they're not plot-important, and I don't see the benefit of saying "this goo-monster" or "that bird monster")
  • Switched to "changed"- it's just different depending on what quest you're doing; yes, specified earlier now that floors are always randomly generated
  • fixed
  • Reworked this- basically, you map one weapon to X and one to A, and at any point you can change what those two weapons are. One button can be empty if you want, though that's mainly because when you start the game you only have one weapon. When you attack, it's only with one button/weapon or the other, so "wields" is a bad word to use- does what I have now make more sense?
  • Is it any better now? It's not really a complicated game- more action-y and very little RPG-y than previous Mana games.
  • Changed.
@Tezero: done. --PresN 23:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about my inattention to this FAC; writing, schoolwork, and my own game project have occupied my already insect-like attention span lately. Right now I'm copyediting sections as I notice awkward turns of phrase - don't worry, nothing too severe. Remaining comments:

  • "acclaimed anime studio" - doesn't appear to be in the source. You can provide another one if you think this is relevant information, but I personally don't. Normally I don't check references unless doing a source review; this just seemed like a detail particularly unlikely to be found in the materials, and it turned out I was right.
  • "and the use of the buttons and stylus" - question: how does this make the game more action-oriented?
  • "which was meant to make the game a "fun-for-all action type game"" - not requiring removal here, but isn't this a little redundant? I mean, the whole paragraph's about how this game was developed to be action-like.
  • Also not found in the source when I checked: "rock and roll". It's a minor distinction and I've amended the text, but for the record (and according to Wikipedia), rock and roll is more like Elvis, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, the Rolling Stones, old bluesy stuff like that, while rock is more generic and encompasses the likes of Neil Young, Pearl Jam, Carole King, Oasis, and even the Strokes, Coldplay, Bastille, and Muse.
  • Also for the record: "first 3 days" - unless dealing with statistics and such, numbers under fifteen should be written out longhand, as can higher ones if the tone is formal enough.
  • Why does Reception keep repeating authors' associated publications, e.g. "Mueller of GameSpot"?
  • "while giving the game a notably high score" - why is it notable?

That should be about it. Tezero (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dropped
  • Added a bit more from that interview to explain what the heck he meant, though after reading it three times I'm still not 100% on it.
  • Replaced the earlier action game quote with that one, since it is a duplicate.
  • Yeah, I guess WP makes a distinction that rock and roll is a type of rock music, guess I don't think that much about musical subgenres.
  • Whoops, I knew that, but my fingers didn't
  • I'm trying to find a balance- we're supposed to use the authors' names when quoting them, not the publication (GameSpot didn't write the review, Mueller did), but if I just say "Mueller said 'blah'", I generally as a reader have forgotten who Mueller is if it's been a few paragraphs since I mentioned that he wrote the GameSpot interview- especially with 7 other names flying about. Saying "Mueller of GameSpot" splits the difference. I started it at FAC for Infinity Blade on the recommendation of J Milburn last April, as well as several GANs since.
  • Changed to "an especially high score" - I just meant it just to call out that they gave the game (average score: 68/100) the equivalent of a 90/100, the idea being that even the reviewers who thought the game was great still thought the gameplay was weak for a Mana game.
@Tezero: done. --PresN 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Not sure the Mueller pattern is really necessary - plenty of articles get by fine without it - but it's just a stylistic choice and definitely not explicitly "wrong". Nice work. Tezero (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JimmyBlackwing[edit]

I probably don't have time to do a review—honestly, I didn't even plan to comment. However, while doing a little drive-by copyediting on the lead, I noticed that at least one statement is not backed up by its source. See here:

"It was designed by series creator Koichi Ishii, directed by Yoshiki Ito, and produced by Takashi Orikata and Katsuji Aoyama."

I clicked on source 10 and found no mention of Ito, Orikata or Aoyama. I'm sure this is an oversight caused by over-familiarity with the source material (I regularly made the same mistake on the Looking Glass articles), but you should definitely do a run-through to eliminate any improperly sourced passages. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source 10 is actually just referencing the next statement (about Production IG); the information about the designers/directors is implicitly sourced to the game, though I can explicitly source the game's credits if necessary. --PresN 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. I'm definitely not going to have time to look over the article more thoroughly, so you can consider these comments resolved. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- sorry but after three weeks we're still quite some way from achieving sufficient commentary to declare a consensus for promotion, so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:26, 14 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 05:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Tunnel Vision (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a song by American singer Justin Timberlake. Although the song didn't receive a huge commercial impact, its iconic music video sparked controversy after its release. I believe the article satisfies the criteria as its well-written (many thanks to Miniapolis (talk · contribs) for the copy-edit from the last FAC), well sourced and referenced. — Tomíca(T2ME) 21:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • "peaked at number 40 on the US Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart, and peaked at number eight on the UK R&B Singles Chart"–I think the second "peaked at" could be omitted without losing the meaning of the sentence.
    Copy-edited it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • premiering on July 3 on Timberlake's Vevo channel–"and premiered" sound more grammatically correct than "premiering" because the premiere is finished action.
    Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The opinions of Kia Macarechi and Justin Myers would read better if separated by semicolon instead of "and".
  • What kind of website is Vulture.com? It's the first time I've noticed it.
  • I'm little worried about the second sentence of the 'Composition and lyrical interpretation'. It seems to mix facts with opinions, or present opinions as facts ("vacuous" synthesizer or syncopated backbone).
  • Also, can you re-title the section 'Composition and lyrics'? Seems easier to understand and keeps its meaning.
  • "number 27 and sold 6,670 digital copies"–how about "selling 6,670 digital copies" or "with 6,670 digital copies sold"
  • Regarding the live performance, do we know when the song debuted live?
Ok, appreciate the swift response. Good luck with the other comments.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- with no commentary for a couple of weeks I'm afraid this nom has stalled so I'll be archiving it shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Falcon's Fury[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Falcon's Fury drop tower attraction currently in operation at the Busch Gardens Tampa Bay amusement park. This is the third nomination; the other two were closed due to a lack of responses/feedback; so please review! The article was reviewed and promoted to GA by The Rambling Man and copy-edited by Miniapolis. Thanks! Dom497 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support pending a response to one question, as I have reviewed the previous two nominations and it appears most if not all major issues were addressed there.
In the reception section, the statement, "For safety reasons, construction on Falcon's Fury was done primarily at night," lacks an inline citation directly after it. Is the source for this supposed to be one of the refs that noted complaints about the noise? If so, I'd add an IC after the above sentence.
  • @Bentvfan54321: Citation 21 supports the above sentence. For pretty much all articles I've ever written, I've followed a general rule that if the citation supports two (or more) consecutive sentences and there are no other citations that only support one of the sentences, only put the citation once, at the end. This would avoid overkill of citations. Hope this makes sense!--Dom497 (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dom497: Okay, that makes sense to me. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, the prose is engaging and the article is free of any major, noticeable issues; I'd hate to see this get archived again due to a lack of response. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

  • I'm not quite familiar with the spelling on these topics, but why is "sky jump" with capital letters?
It's the model of the ride.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you incorporate the box quote in the first paragraph of 'Ride experience'?
Wouldn't doing so push the line for the NPOV policy? I personally think its better to keep the box.
  • Check the external links. It appear there's some problem with refs 16 and Seaworldparks.com. Other than that, I can not access BGT Fans website for some reason. I see this is frequently used, but the web's name sounds kind of "suspicious", at least for FA criteria.
I have no problem accessing the websites. Regarding the credibility, I'm only using it to document when things happened withe the support of pictures. I did the same thing with ShieKra (also a FA). Ref 16 is dead but it is archived by WayBack (its already linked in the article).--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 59 and 62 are YouTube videos. The uploader of the first is Theme Park Review, but on the second one is Diana Schnellbach, a person unknown to Google, at least. If Schnellbach is not a journalist, I'm afraid you'll have to find alternative on that one.
I've changed ref 62.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see some Facebook and Twitter refs here and there, but they are from the Busch Gardens Tampa profile. I can not claim whether they are reliable or not, but it's useful to note them if some other has comment on them.
All those links are coming from the official BGT facebook and twitter pages.--Dom497 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Retrohead: Thanks for the review! I have addressed all your comments.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A NOTE TO FA ADMINISTRATORS: Please consider the supports as well as comments addressed from the previous 2 reviews before closing the review. The article has barely changed since the first review (other than issues brought up in the reviews).--Dom497 (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the coordinators may review earlier nominations to check whether previously unresolved comments have been dealt with, supporting comments don't 'carry over' to a new nom. You are free to leave neutrally worded notices on the talk pages of earlier reviewers to let them know that an article they commented on before is again at FAC, just so long as you do it for all the reviewers and not just those who supported. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid can't see any progress since the preceding discussion, so I'll be archiving the nomination shortly -- pls feel free to try again in two weeks per FAC instructions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Emily Ratajkowski[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WP:BIOG, WP:FASHION, and WP:FILMBIO.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:44, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: GOCE reviewer Baffle gab1978, GAC reviewer Cirt and PR discussants Cirt, SNUGGUMS, Kiyoweap, and Sigeng.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about,Emily Ratajkowski who is an elite bikini model (has appeared in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue) and who is best known as the model from the video for "Blurred Lines", which was the number one song of the year 2013 in several countries. She has parlayed her model buzz into sex symbol status and some movie roles.

I am hoping for a WP:TFA for her 25th birthday in a little over 17 months from now. An October WP:GAN, a November WP:PR and a December WP:GOCE effort make me feel this article is moving in the proper direction for a WP:FAC nomination.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N. B. I belatedly added this nomination to the WP:FAC page over 3 and a half days after opening the review.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this page was viewed 3.2 million times in 2013 and 1.5 million times in 2014 so it is a fairly important page in that regard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, as GA Reviewer. I also pitched in with some comments at the peer review. The article was high quality at time of GA Review, and has only improved in quality since then. :) — Cirt (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak oppose - I don't consider YouTube an acceptable source. Although if refs #24, #32, #35 and #41 are replaced with reliable sources and the n.a. fields in File:March 2012 Issue 3 cover of Treats!.jpg are filled, I will officially support. MaRAno FAN 14:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Support :). MaRAno FAN 07:21, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose due to prose and sourcing. The prose needs some serious work. It is extremely choppy: Fact 1. Fact 2. Something else slightly tied to Fact 1. It does not flow at all. Other things:

  • the lead is quite short
    • The article is currently 13823 characters of readable prose. I have just expanded the LEAD by 152 characters to 1221 characters of readable prose with these edits. I don't know how much more is really LEADworthy from the article. Keep in mind that WP:LEADLENGTH says that for an article less than 15,000 characters a 1 to 2 paragraph LEAD is what is expected. These three short paragraphs are about what would be expected for this length article even though it is formatted in three paragraphs rather than two.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modeling/Modelling - both spellings are in the article
    • From what I understand British english uses 2 ls and American uses 1 (see this source). Even though the infobox uses the British spelling, I will go with 1 l in the text since she is more American as I understand it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did her appearance on the cover of the magazine treats! directly lead to its price increase? If not, this fact does not belong in the article. If so, you need a source - just citing the two covers to show different prices is NOT good enough.
    • Karanacs, All we know is that her magazine cover seems to have generated enough buzz for her appearance in videos to be demanded. The chronology is an objective fact. I am not sure I understand your point, but what if we had information regarding the sales of the magazine in which she appeared on the cover? I am not sure I can find this, but I vaguely recall something about how that issue sold like hot cakes.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just looked at the treats! article and noticed that the print run was increased from 5,000 to 10,000 between issues 1 and 2, and not between 3 and 4 as would be necessary to support the claim. Not sure what to say. I guess I will revert to my general lack of understanding of your objection to the objective facts presented.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is WP:SYNTHESIS. You are taking Fact 0 (she appeared on the cover) and then listing Fact 1 (price was X on y date) and Fact 2 (price was Z on A date) to imply that her appearance on the cover is connected to the price increase. Until you have sources that explicitly say there is a connection between her appearance on the cover and the price increase, this needs to be removed from the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not impressed with how many references there are to YouTube videos. I read your explanations above, but they don't satisfy me. If third-party sources do not discuss these events, then they don't need to be in the article. YouTube would be considered a primary source, then, and we should be avoiding those if at all possible.
    • Rather than address this generally, I'd be happy to discuss each individual fact that is only supported by YouTube and state whether it belongs in the article if no other source can be found. I think we are only dealing with a handful of facts.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think an entire paragraph on Blurred Lines the song is warranted, when she was involved solely in the video, not the song itself.
    • Are you talking about the short paragraph beginning with "Blurred Lines" went on to become the number 1 song of 2013? It is barely a paragraph.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of quotes from her about her choices and her beliefs. There is not a lot of analysis by others of what she's done. It makes the article seem lopsided - it is focusing on her perspective of herself. This may be something you cannot overcome yet, because she is so new to the industry, but I think it makes the article incomplete.
  • is Fashionista.com a reliable source?
  • Is the Styleite blog a reliable source?
  • Is MovieWeb a reliable source?
  • Twitter is not a reliable source
    • I have removed one of the three uses. It is the only source we have for her claim that the cover was non-consensual. Should I remove this content?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Personal life section seems more like gossip.
  • Is fashionmodeldirectory a reliable source?
  • Is Stylecaster.com a reliable source?
  • Is the worlds best ever a reliable source?
  • Is the fashion model directory a reliable source?

Karanacs (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I do not believe the image of the magazine cover can be used as fair use in this article. The cover itself is mentioned but is not discussed in detail. Karanacs (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Karanacs, Do we have to find sources on photographic techniques or find sources discussing its use of black-and-white photography. The photo certainly relevant to the bio. I am not sure what you are asking for.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the fair use guidelines, magazine covers can't be included just as illustrations for biographies. There would need to be some type of discussion within the article about the cover. Karanacs (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karanacs, P.S. I have just made a few responses. It was just to show good faith that I intend to really address your concerns on Tuesday. I am a bit tired and will be doing a lot less cerebral edits the rest of the night.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far I'm unconvinced that any of those sources are WP:RS. Are they mentioned by other third-party sources? Do they have a good reputation for accuracy? Their about pages don't tell me enough. Karanacs (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- No progress for two weeks so I'll be archiving this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 11 February 2015 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Giselle[edit]

Nominator(s): SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1841 ballet Giselle. It introduced the star ballerina Carlotta Grisi to the French public. This is the earliest ballet still in the general repertoire. It is also considered by balletomanes to be ballet's Hamlet. The article is well-written, and deserves a place among the FAs. SeeSpot Run (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the moment. Pleased as I am to see this delightful work represented here, the article is not yet ready for promotion to FA. It was raised to GA only on 1 February, and needs further work if it is to meet the more stringent FA criteria. Specific points of concern:

  • Uncited statements evident at several paragraph ends – there may be others
  • Excessive image clutter, leading to the text frequently being swamped and squeezed. Some of these images are highly marginal to the subject, and could easily be dropped. The problem had been exacerbated by frequent upsizing.
  • The structure of the article looks odd and somewhat illogical, with the plot section stuck on the end almost as an afterthought, and other sections appearing in what looks almost a random order. I am not that familiar with ballet articles (apart from The Rite of Spring), but I think that the order widely adopted for opera articles, with an early plot summary and a general sequence of background → composition → performance → reception → music, would be more appropriate here.
  • Although I've not read the general text, I have looked at the lead. The date of composition is missing from the first line. The wording "a poem about a girl who dies after an all-night ball called 'Fantômes' " is ambiguous and rather clumsy. I don't know if "composed the choreography" is general ballet-speak, but I've not previously heard choreography described as "composed". "Designed", perhaps. Overall, I doubt that this lead properly fulfils the WP requirement that it provides a summary of the whole article. It looks somewhat brief and attenuated.

I am not at this stage sure whether these issues can be resolved within a FAC timescale, but am prepared to wait and see what others say. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment: I concur with Brian. The article has quite a distance to go before being FA material and it will be best to archive this nomination so you can work on the issues noted. You are welcome to re-nominate after at least two weeks have passed. It might also be helpful to look at exemplars in close-by domains (opera, musicals) and solicit feedback from experienced FA writers in those domains before coming back. --Laser brain (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2015 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) [21].[reply]

LIM-49 Nike Zeus[edit]

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the US's first concerted effort to build and deploy an anti-ballistic missile system. It faced enormous hurdles as the nature of the ICBM threat changed more rapidly than it could be developed. By the time it entered final testing in 1962, it was clear the system was essentially useless.

The missile is interesting, but the overarching story is even more interesting. While researching the article, I came across formerly secret documents discussing the effectiveness of the Zeus system. Lacking Zeus, they predicted that the Soviets would kill 95% of the US population in a full-scale exchange. Zeus would reduce that to only 75%. They concluded it simply wasn't worth building - why bother spending $10 to $12 billion saving a few million civilians?

Zeus eventually died, and was replaced by a way more complex system, Nike-X. Nike-X entered into a race with even more ICBMs. Rinse, repeat - Sentinel, Safeguard, Sentry, SDI... I find the Zeus story to be a wonderful microcosm of the entire Cold War era debate about megadeaths and guns and butter.

Plus it has some super-cool color pictures of missile launches.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • There's only one comment so far at WT:MIL#What to do, what to do..., and that comment may or may not support splitting the article in two. Not my call. - Dank (push to talk) 21:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the US raced to close this "missile gap".": Please see the linked article. There was no actual missile gap, and none of the relevant US policymakers believed there was; it was nothing more than an often-repeated lie. Maybe you're clear about this in your article, I haven't checked, but someone reading your lead is most likely to walk away with the opposite impression. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first of these items was already decided, and the section in question was removed. It will form the basis of a new article, but the Nike-X one comes first.
As to the second, I wrote that one too. Yes, the gap was fictional, but that didn't stop the US from racing to fill it. And it didn't stop them from building thousands of bombers to fill the "bomber gap", nor getting afraid of a sneak attack in the 80s. We know the Soviets also suffered from similar issues, especially when they concluded the US was planning a sneak attack in 1983 due to the number of Dominoes Pizzas being delivered to the Pentagon (there's no way I could make that up). Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now opposing. This is a stopper for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what is a show-stopper for you? Do you refer to the "missile gap" issue? If so, can you explain precisely what it is you feel is the problem? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone reading your lead is most likely to walk away with the opposite impression, that there was a missile gap: "the Soviets claimed to be building hundreds of missiles, and the US raced to close this "missile gap". Building more Zeus' to match the Soviet fleet would be expensive ...". How could they "match the Soviet fleet" if there was no missile gap? You may be taking your quote marks as scare quotes, but a reader could just as easily interpret them as an actual quote. Btw, the plural of "Zeus" is either "Zeuses" (ugh) or "Zeus missiles". - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the diffs at missile gap ... thanks for your great work on that one. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, I see what you're getting at now. Try that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not opposing. - Dank (push to talk) 23:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Leaving aside for the moment the discussion of a potential article split, and associated length/coverage issues,

Sorry, what specifically are the length/coverage issues? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your comment at the WT:MILHIST discussion, but as I said, the potential split was not a consideration in my oppose
Understood, but I just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing anything. As I noted above, action was taken on that item.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the article currently meets the other FA criteria. Specifically:

  • Images: File:NIKE_Zeus.jpg is tagged as lacking author info and is sourced to a dead link; other images with dead links; this site doesn't attribute its images AFAICT so sourcing to it cannot support licensing status
Williamson, who I've been talking to for some time to nail down the details in the article, provided these images. They were all made by US Army personnel of contractors during his time on the island. ORTS seems a little slow updating the pages to reflect that. The other "dead links" appear to refer to the ones from WSMR? Can you be more specific? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All the Redstone links are broken, as is one of the JFK Library links. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I'm missing the point here. How is this an issue? I am unaware of any requirement over on the commons that images can only be placed there if one guarantees the link will exist for all time. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: grammar and spelling mistakes (eg. "Inestead", "be developed for the both the warhead"), changes in tense (eg "the Report suggests" but then "they state" and then "they suggested"), awkward/unclear phrasing (eg "Having considered the stages of development of the various systems, the Air Force was told to stop work")
All addressed I believe. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those specific examples, yes, but not the issue generally - further examples include "better understanding of weapons effects" and "Two TTR's closest". Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those too, now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

switches in variety of English (eg. "defense" but then "offence"), etc

This is due to editing on two machines, which insist on different spellings. My plan is to address content and MOS issues and then I will run one last spell check to convert everything to US before pushing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have completed this change. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still mixing - eg. both defense and defence in the lead. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Any others? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation formatting: mix of templated and untemplated full citations; incomplete citations (eg FN16); missing italics on work titles; drawing citation details from the wrong place (eg. FN46, which is actually a republication of an earlier source); incorrect ordering on Bibliography; etc
All fixed.Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all fixed - FN46 from above, now FN45, is still drawing from the wrong place; further examples of problems include doubled italics on FN42 and an error in author name in FN83. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure why there is a problem in FN42, it seems this is from the template itself. Can you see a problem with the template? I have re-cited FN45. I do not understand the issue with FN83? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific on this?Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you're using pseudoheadings in the References section. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting! I was under the impression there was no difference in end-text, which is why I used those. Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

dash vs hyphen confusion;

Fixed. I compared with original sources for technical terms (surface-to-air, anti-missile) or Merriam-Webster for other examples. Should be good now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet - some phrases missing hyphens (eg. "18 month study"), some use of hyphens where there should be dashes (eg. FN 86). Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To save us both a lot of time, is there a tool that will complete these for me? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

captions with periods that aren't complete sentences; etc

I believe you are referring to single instance in the infobox? If so I removed it. Are there any other examples you can find? Maury Markowitz (talk)
Yes, further examples include the graph and the Early detection image. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might consider running this through A-class review before FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This has been open for over two weeks with no declaration of support and outstanding opposition, so I will be archiving it shortly. I advise taking some time to work on the items noted and possibly pursuing an A-class review as Nikkimaria suggested. You are welcome to re-nominate after two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2015 (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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Camas pocket gopher[edit]

Nominator(s): Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Camas pocket gopher is a rodent endemic to the US State of Oregon. The article was a two sentence stub with a mislabeled image until the recent overhaul, started in November. The text has been expanded with reliable sources to provide comprehensive detail. The article went through a thorough GA review done by a very experienced reviewer. It also went through Peer Review. The text has been copy-edited by a member of the WP:GOCE. Images provided are appropriately sourced (some required emails and added legwork through OTRS). The images have all been cleaned up by the Illustration or Map lab. Everything about the animal is here, so it should be ready. Gaff (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you please state whether this is a Wikicup entry or not. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* I'm not going to compete in Wikicup, so no. --Gaff (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Burrow diagram could stand to be larger
  • How much larger? I'm not particular, since anyone interested can just follow the link. Unless you mean the diagram itself needs to be larger? Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is something missing from the 1879 caption?
  • fixed Copyeditor may have truncated. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Interesting, since this set of maps by this uploader is used for locator maps all across the US [23] and on the template for most Oregon locations and the List of counties in Oregon. I think it will just be easier and better (and fun) if I redraw the map from trusted PD sources, to also show more of N America west coast, for perspective. I can certainly accomplish that and have made other similar maps. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* fixed see new map and clarified source. Gaff (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a problem, since the licensing looks weird and the creator (an en:WP ADMIN) may not still be active User:Decumanus. The uploader is still active on Commons. I will contact them or get a new map made. This map is not essential to the article, but is helpful. Gaff (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The uploader at commons did not make this map and the user who did (the WP admin) is no longer active. There is a similar, better looking, map here File:Map missoula floods.gif. I'm asking for more info as to the data used to create the color coded regions, but it looks promising. If this fails and if you/we feel that a map is needed to illustrate where these floods swept through, it is a trivial matter to have one made, even based only on descriptive text of what regions were affected by the floods. --Gaff (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I changed to the better sourced map. This map is sourced from USGS and is PD. The text derives from the original uncropped version of the file and can be seen in the edit history here. The user at Commons who uploaed the map has commented here . This should be adequate to clarify sourcing and is a nice looking map. --Gaff (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha[edit]

Thanks for working on this and bringing it up to FAC! I have a few comments:

  • "First collected in 1829" This is inconsistent with the body, which talks of a complicated series of articles by Richardson from 1828 to 1839. Do we actually know when the type specimen was collected?
* It was described in 1829 (article text now changed). Richardson does not state in Fauna boreali-americana when it was collected. The comment about Richardon's writings during the period 1828-1839 were made by Allen in 1893. (They are rather critical of Richardson's work). They pertain to the entire genus. The Allen citation provided is a pdf. The section of interest is entitled "Questions of Nomenclature" on page 53. Allen later states on pages 54 and 55 that Richardson described four members of the genus in 1828 and 1829. He does not specify when T. bulbivorus was described. However, the type specimen of T. bulbivorus is in the 1829 publication Fauna boreali-americana (I have provided a link to an online version of that text). All subsequent and modern authorities encountered state the the type was described in 1829 (see Verts&Carraway). Even exactly where the specimen was collected is vague (as the article notes). As far as time of year or more specific date, I don't think more is known. Does that clear it up or do I need to rewrite those parts of that paragraph? --Gaff (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There are three genera of North American pocket gophers". Others occur in Mexico, which is commonly considered part of North America.
  • "described by Rafinesque-Schmaltz" This is Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. I've never seen him referred to as "Rafinesque-Schmaltz", but our article does give that name, so maybe I'm wrong.
* You are right, but also, so is Richardson?! The mother's family name is Schmaltz. (see the article on Constantine Samuel Rafinesque for more detail) Richardson is inconsistent in useage and spells it incorrectly as Smaltz. If you look at p 206 of Fauna boreali-americana, he refers to him first as "Rafinesque-Smaltz" but then simply "Rafinesque" in the very next sentence and the next page. I like having the block quote in the article. What we could do is to truncate the last sentence of the quote, so that it ends with an ellipsis (i.e "The scull is wanting, and the animal, therefore, cannot be with certainty referred to a genus ..."). Then just dropped the Schmaltz elsewhere in the article. Still, seems a minor point that is fine either way --Gaff (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still the gopher's archaic name" I don't know what this means.
* fixed Reverted this sentence to an older version. It was changed when the article went through GOCE editing. --Gaff (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a set of previously collected specimens later known as the California Gopher" Do later reports identify this gopher? Sounds like it would be some form of Thomomys bottae.
* Yes, that is correct from what I have read. The Allen pdf reference outlines this and on page 57, where he writes that these specimens "pass in future under the hitherto little known name bottae". --Gaff (talk) 04:42, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is one of five species in the subgenus Megascapheus". Seven according to more recent listings; ITIS is missing Thomomys nayarensis and Thomomys sheldoni. In general I wouldn't consider ITIS a reliable source for current taxonomy.
  • You mention in passing that a vole species is also endemic to the Willamette Valley. Is there any discussion in the sources of why certain small mammal species are endemic to this valley? That sounds like an interesting piece of biogeography.
* That is the gray-tailed vole, which is an article I wrote and promoted to GA status, hopefully eventually also FA. It has also been found across the Columbia River in Clark County Washington, so I need to fix that statement about endemic to Willamette Valley only. The best book I have seen on biogeography of the region is by Bailey, Vernon (1936): The Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon. I'll have to sort out how to incorporate species specific information on how this pertains to the Camas gopher, but it is an interesting topic. Oregon geography is fascinating. --Gaff (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References:

  • "Allen, Joel Asaph (1893). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History (PDF). The Museum. Retrieved 27 November 2014." This should be cited as a journal article (with the article title and volume number).
* fixed. --Gaff (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly for Coues (1875).
  • Elliot (1905) was published by the Field Columbian Museum (=Field Museum of Natural History), not the AMNH. Also, it should probably cite a serial title. My own database cites it as "Elliot, D.G. 1905. A checklist of mammals of the North American continent, the West Indies, and the neighboring seas. Field Columbian Museum, Zoölogical Series 6:1–761."
  • Merriam (1895) is a North American Fauna article and should be cited similar to Bailey (1915).

Possible additional sources:

  • http://biostor.org/reference/82822 is interesting historically but doesn't seem to add to the account given in the article.
  • Elftman, H.O. 1931. Pleistocene mammals of Fossil Lake, Oregon. American Museum Novitates 481:1–21. Writes that the fossil Thomomys from Fossil Lake, Oregon, was identified as T. bulbivorus by Cope in 1883 and 1889. That identification was overturned by 1902 though.
  • Whitaker, J.O., Jr., Walters, B.L., Castor, L.K., Ritzi, C.M. and Wilson, N. 2007. Host and distribution lists of mites (Acari), parasitic and phoretic, in the hair or on the skin of North American wild mammals north of Mexico: records since 1974. Faculty Publications from the Harold W. Manter Laboratory of Parasitology 1:1–173. Lists mites of T. bulbivorus as Androlaelaps geomys (but not A. fahrenholzi, contra your source) and Echinonyssus femoralis (p. 15 and p. 16 respectively).
  • http://www.jstor.org/stable/1380397 is the only information I've been able to find so far on the species's phylogenetic relationships. It claims that it is sister to a group of T. bottae, T. townsendii, and T. umbrinus, which would make this a relatively ancient species. It would be nice to confirm this with more recent genetic data.

Ucucha (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Coordinator note: This has been open for over 3 weeks without any support, so I will be archiving it shortly. It looks like you have a good list of things to consider, so I'd advise taking some time to work on the article and maybe build some capital by reviewing some other FAC nominations. You are welcome to re-nominate after two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2015 (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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Night of January 16th[edit]

Nominator(s): RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second FA nomination for this article about a well-known Broadway play. The first try got an image review, but no other comments. Since then the article has been expanded with a few more details and references. But given the lack of feedback, I don't know what else, if anything, may be needed. So, I'm hoping that either the second time is the charm for promotion, or if not, maybe I can at least get some comments on what to improve. Thanks in advance for your input, be it good, bad, or ugly. RL0919 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey[edit]

  • Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
  • [[Mary Benedict Cushing|Mrs. Vincent Astor]], responded incredulously: I don't see anything on this in the MOS, but use of Mr and Mrs is certainly uncommon at Wikipedia, and the Mrs <Husband's name> form is very un-21st century. You should probably restrict this sort of thing to direct quotes.
  • Rand disowned this version due to the changes.: literally disowned? Doe shtis mean she had her name removed and refused royalties?
  • The production opened on October 22, 1934, and closed in November 1934.: that could be anywhere from just over a week to over a month. Do we know how long it ran, or how many performances there were?
  • Kay also starred under a stage name: is the stage name a secret?
  • and closed on March 18, 1973, after just 30 performances: does this imply the London run of only 22 performances was not a success? The "Reception" section says so, but that's no the impression the reader gets until then.
  • Jury gimmick: sounds like a value judgement—in regular parlance "gimmick" is used in a pejorative sense
  • turned a profit after subtracting the ticket price: do we know that ticket price?
  • Merrill dismissed this explanation as a cover-up for the play promoting Nietzschean ideas that Rand later rejected: could this be elaborated? We shouldn't assume readers are familiar with Rand (imagine this article on the Main Page)
  • Most other reviewers were more positive: if most reviews were positive, then why does it take three sentences to get to them?
  • I'd like to see slightly more background by way of a capsule history of Rand up to the writing of the play. We're given no idea how old she was or how experienced a writer she was, or if this play were part of a particular phase in her career or of some artistic movement.
  • Similarly, I'd like to see some background on Rand's views of individualism vs conformity. "Individualism" and "conformity" are not monolothic concepts—I'd like to see what they meant to her.
  • Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 08:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rapid feedback and for your copyediting help. Some of your comments/questions have relatively quick answers, so replies on those now and more later for items that require more time:
  • Mrs. Astor: The 'Mrs.' form is how she is named in every source that mentions this incident, including ones as recent as 2009. Using another name would probably be synthesis. However, I only included the name in order to wikilink to the person the comment was attributed to. Looking at it again, I realized the link was to the wrong Mrs. Astor. The correct one has no article. Absent a link, I don't see the name as that important, so I've simply removed it.
  • Disowned: Changed to 'disavowed', which seems a better term.
  • LA production dates: Nothing that I found gives the exact closing date. I thought I had found the closing date in a news article, but then there was a piece the next week that showed the production was still going.
  • Kay's stage name: No secret, but not widely mentioned. Pretty sure I have a source that states it, but I'll have to figure out which one. I've added it.
  • Run lengths: The relation of the success of a play and the length of its run isn't straightforward. If the house is packed but the run is limited by other factors, then it is still a success. But in both of these instances, the productions are described in sources as commercially unsuccessful. I removed the word 'just' from the description of the 1973 show in the Productions section, so now the failure of both productions is covered equally in the Reception section.
  • Jury gimmick: As indicated by the quote marks, this is what it is called in sources. I don't think anything negative is intended; Rand called it this herself. And the definition of the term matches exactly what the jury device is to the play: it attracts attention, but it has little functional impact.
Back later with further responses. --RL0919 (talk) 10:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further follow-ups below (plus one updated above):
  • Ticket prices: Prices varied for different seats and performances. The source cited says "no more than $2.75". I added a detail along this line, but obviously that's vague. If you want more specific prices, newspaper ads show most prices for the Broadway run were $0.50 to $2.50. But I'm reluctant to use an advertisement as a source in the article.
    • Not terribly important, but mentioning it raises curiosity. I think it's fine now. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rand's background: Excellent suggestion; I'm adding material on that now.
More to come on your three remaining items. --RL0919 (talk) 21:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last round from your initial comments:
  • Merrill's interpretation: Expanded with more detail.
  • Review order: Changed.
  • Rand's views: Expanded with more detail.
Let me know if there is anything I missed from your comments, or other improvements you would like to see. --RL0919 (talk) 01:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm no expert on either Rand or the theatre (I've never even read any of Rand's work), but the article gives the feeling of comprehensiveness. If you ever managed to track down when the LA production closed, please make sure to add it. I'm giving this article my support on the prose. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 03:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. I rechecked the source and was able to get slightly more specific on the LA close date -- "late November" instead of just "November". Will still keep any eye out for an exact date. --RL0919 (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great—that's still much more helpful. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 05:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by karanacs. I had no idea that Rand had written plays, and this one sounds intriguing. For this article, I think the prose needs more work. I did some copyediting in the history section, but I would love to see another set of eyes on it. Further, these issues with history:

  • "such as whether Andre had a gun"....who is Andre? This character hasn't been introduced. Can we include at least a few words of description?
  • I think Royalty dispute paragraph needs to be moed up to the main history section. It would flow well from the idea that Woods wanted dramatic conflict to this idea that he hired collaborators
  • The title changes section mentions Rand's 1968 version of the play. This had not been discussed in the article yet
  • The other sections weren't as messy, but another set of eyes would help.
  • The TCM website lists two other names for this: Private Secretary and something else.
  • Is The Classic TV Archive considered a reliable source?
  • A reviewer for The Times praised Foster's performance as "tense and beautiful". This needs a citation immediately after this sentence so we know where the quote came from. There are two sources cited after the next sentence, which is confusing for this particular quote.

Karanacs (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback; I'm good with your edits. More eyes is definitely better! Replies to your comments from above:
  • Changed "Andre" to "the defendant" -- her name isn't important to the point, and you are correct it hasn't been mentioned in the body yet at that spot, only in the lead.
  • Incorporated royalty dispute as suggested, and re-ordered the other subsections so the published version is discussed before the title changes.
  • The two other titles for the 1941 movie are described as "working titles", not titles used for release. I'm not sure that level of detail about the movie is needed for the article about the play. (I did add it to the separate article about the movie.) It's not hard to include it if you think it is important; just trying to avoid bloat and stick to summary style.
  • Added a refnote after the "tense and beautiful" quote.
  • CTVA aggregates data from other sources, so I would take them with caution. In this case they specifically cite The Viewer and TVTimes as their own sources, which increases my confidence. I would have consulted those directly, but it's difficult to get them in the US (my local libraries don't have them, and $100+ for an individual database subscription is a bit much). If someone reading this is UK based or has access to the BUFVC databases, I am happy to take a substitute source.
Let me know if you need more. I will be traveling later today, so there may be a short delay in responses, but I will be as attentive as I can. --RL0919 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the CTVA source, I added a source from the British Film Institute that supports the original date and lead actor for the ITV adaptation. I will need to re-check the other source already used to confirm what details it supports, and possibly find another source or emend the sentence, before removing the CTVA source. --RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Karanacs:, sorry it took a while, but the Paulu book didn't provide some of the details, so I had to go hunting for alternative sources. Finally tracked down coverage in Variety, which I used to replace both CTVA and BFI. Please let me know if there's anything else that would help motivate your support. --RL0919 (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing all that work. It still needs a copyedit, I think. Karanacs (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully someone else will give it another pass. If not, the nomination will fizzle anyway, since 1 or even 2 supports won't cut it. --RL0919 (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Obviously getting closer but if after over a month at FAC we're still looking for a copyedit then I think we'd best close this nom and return after the work's done. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2015&oldid=649177169"