Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2010[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 27 May 2010 [1].

Sentence spacing[edit]

Nominator(s): Airborne84 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because it was an FAC before [2] and adjustments have been made according to the comments. Also, a thorough peer review was conducted [3] and those adjustments were made as well. The readable prose is now about 4150 words and is less than 32kb. The comprehensive reference list and bibliography were deemed necessary because this is a controversial topic.

Numerous minor adjustments were made. Major changes to the article include:

1. Split lengthy sub-sections into their own articles.
2. Reworked "style guide" section to address WP:WORLDVIEW comments.
3. Reduced wordiness/verbosity throughout. Airborne84 (talk) 06:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. In the lead, you mention the "1800s". That is ambiguous: is it the period from 1800 to 1809 or from 1800 to 1899? Ucucha 11:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "1800s" to "19th century." --Airborne84 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ucucha 18:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
1. Digital age: I see "behaviour" as well as "behavior", stick to one kind of English: British/American
Fixed. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the British "grey" in the quote? I suppose a "gray" in the bracket or something is needed for consistency. Not sure--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:MoS for quotations says to "Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation" unless there's a reason to make a change. In this case, it's probably just better to leave as is. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2 File:Example of french-spaced text (1874).jpg: The watermark of Google books can be removed
Watermark removed. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. "Most debate is about whether to strike a keyboard's spacebar once or twice between sentences" a new idea in the lead, needs to be something in the sections too, also needs a reference
Didn't think this one was controversial, but added a reference. No problem. The "keyboard striking" is mentioned again in the "History" and "Controversy" sections. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. File:Double and single sentence spaced text examples - US government publications.jpg: the left side of the image has a blurred grey outline (maybe an impression of what on the back page). Suitably replace or clean the image.
I'll look at this again. I think the people that scanned all these government typewritten documents from that era didn't have very good scanners. That was the best one I found—with all the key typewriter conventions on it. I'll look again. Done. Replaced left side of image with another. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement has cut words on the boundary, which is every distracting. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try again. It's tricky to compare images of text in these cases. I could make the area larger, but then the text would look smaller than the text on the right side. I can expand the text on the right side to match by reducing resolution, but that doesn't look good. However, if the current image isn't going to work, I'll try to tweak it. --Airborne84 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The image is replaced. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. It is unclear what Double spacing exactly is from para 2 of the lead. Maybe rework the para by changing the sequence of sentences. Single spacing -> problem ("It was felt that ..") -> Double spacing definition
Rewording would have worked too. Think it might still have required a few additional clarifying words, so just added them. Done. --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. Style guides: I was a little confused: "The most widely-used style guide in Italy, Il Nuovo Manuale di Stile (2009),[52]" the reference for a 2009 book is a Lesina, Roberto (a 1994 book)? Absurd. The problem seems to be the year of the first edition is not noted. Most of the style guides' dates are from 2000 onwards, possibly their first edition dates are also not noted. Also "The most widely-used style guide in Italy" needs a reference.
Mostly done. Done. Fixed the date and citation information for the 2009 edition of the manual. I should be able to find a reference in Italian easily enough - the problem is translating. If it becomes a problem, I'll just delete that wording tomorrow. Changed text to describe scope of the manual instead. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the reference is not the solution. The first edition dates reflect the oldness of the manual. How many years is a guide been used? Later editions usually have minor changes--Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Could you clarify what you mean here? The 1st edition is from 1986 (2nd edition - 1994, and Edition 2.0 in 2009). The current edition (2009) is what's referenced now. Do you mean that the footnote should mention that the first edition is from 1986? Although my source from Italy told me this is the most widely-used style guide in Italy (WP:OR), I gave up trying to translate pages to get a reference to support that. I thought that simply describing its scope (general + academic use) was useful. It's also possible to simply delete the entire sentence and reference, but is there a fix that you have in mind that would preserve this instead? --Airborne84 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may have addressed this. I used only the most current editions that were available for all works in the "Style guides" section. (The "History" section is different, of course.) I didn't note the first date of publication for any of them. Rather than address this topic with only this particular reference, I adjusted the text in the intro paragraph for the "Style guide" section. It now identifies style guides "published after 1990", as opposed to "current". If this doesn't address your comment, please let me know. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) IMO, "Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (2007), first published in 1966" is the best wording, the latest version as well as first edition date is given. The history is also reflected. Anyway, History section does not cover these style guides. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After some thought, I decided the best way to handle this was to put the first date of publication in the notes. Reasons:
1. In the last FAC and the peer review, a recurring theme was verbosity and wordiness. A recurring recommendation was to strike all unneccessary wording and commentary.
2. The Oxford Manual of Style was combined in 2003, so it reads as: "The 2003 edition of the Oxford Style Manual combined the Oxford Guide to Style (first published as Horace Hart's Rules for Compositors and Readers at the University Press, Oxford in 1893) and the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (first published as the Authors' and Printers' Dictionary in 1905)." I thought that was just too much to put in the text (especially given #1 above). I left the "Style Manual: For Authors, Editors and Printers (2007), first published in 1966 by the Commonwealth Government Printing Office of Australia" in the article text to address a comment in the previous FAC nomination. An editor said that the article didn't sufficiently encompass the entire English-speaking world. In this case, I used the extra note in the text to include the "Commonwealth" internal link. The first printing date didn't have to go with it, it just seemed to sound better as worded. So, that is the only exception to the "First printing date in the footnotes" task that I just completed. I hope this addresses your concern. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notes are good but let's be practical, people usually do not read all notes. The history is still not reflected. Someone may be deceived by the dates, most after 2000. It gives an impression that only recently guides are addressing the problem that originated in the 1890s. Anyway, this is my opinion. If this remains the only issue that stops this article from FA, then I would request the issue be ignored (others' comments are requested to form a consensus), though I would insist in the long term (not necessary for FA status for this article) that in the daughter article Sentence spacing in language and style guides, this issue be addressed with explicit dates in the main text. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. I think the first date of publication would be a good addition to the daughter article as you mention. It's tough to reconcile here since there were so many previous comments along the lines of "remove all unnecessary wording." So, I think your idea is the right way to go. Also, the "style guides" section is intended to reflect only the most recent editions ("published after 1990"). I had considered using the word "Current" in front of "Literature" for that major section heading, but decided against it. The last paragraph in the "History" section discusses the movement of style guides to single sentence-spacing beginning in the 1990s. That's when the major shift started to happen (although that could be better outlined in the other daughter article History of sentence spacing). It might have been useful to repeat that in the first para of the "Style guides" section, but I ruthlessly removed repetitive information based on the last FAC nomination—so that's where we are now. Thanks again for your comments. --Airborne84 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! --Airborne84 (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not strike comments on your own. Let the reviewer/closing delegate (if reviewer does not return) examine if the issue is closed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm relatively new at the FAC page. My fault. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: It is difficult to navigate through the Notes and References sections as presently organised. The main problems are:

  • The notes are very laboriously formatted, with the full spelling out of source details when this information is already contained in the References list. In [42] for example, you could avoid much repetition by "Baugh, p. 200", "Cutts, p. 79" etc
Yes, I used a technique where the first time a source was used, I spelled it out fully. Second and later uses were "shortened". You are right though that the full source is listed in each case in the references. It's not an undertaking that I would begin lightly, but if you think it is a necessary change to become an FA, I will go through and reformat the endnotes—using short citations. Please let me know—or other editors feel free to weigh in on this matter. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All inline citations listed in the "References" are "short cited" now. This took...a while...but the article is the better for it now. Thanks for the useful comment. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the notes have lengthy text attached. [120] is a mini-essay. I assume that these notes are quotations from the cited source; if so, why are they are necessary? Surely the object of a citation is to indicate the source, not replicate it?
The use of explanatory text and elaboration in endnotes is an accepted technique at Wikipedia. See for example, Starship Troopers, Rosa Parks or Absinthe. While reducing the readable prose, in some cases, I moved the information to footnotes. In other cases I deleted it or moved it to a sister article. Other editors also used explanatory notes in some citations. I believe it is worthwhile to keep them for two reasons: 1. People read the endnotes. I have seen a number of "m" (minor) edits within the endnotes in the past month. I'd hate to reduce or remove material that people are reading. 2. This is a topic of heated debate on the Internet. People will happily attack insufficiently supported material, as can be seen in threads in the talk page before the citations finally reached a level of reliability where it was rather silly to attack them. In some cases (on this page and other related ones), people simply didn't believe the WP:RSs I had listed because they were in books and were not immediately verifiable (as irrelevant as that is under WP:V. I solved that problem by adding text in endnotes for some citations. Others have additional material that supplements the cited material. For this subject, the standard of reliability will be held to a higher level than normally seen on Wikipedia.
Having said that, I'll agree that some of the endnotes are lengthy. I'm not sure that detracts from the article as an FAC though. I think the readable prose is what's important to the average reader. Those sufficiently interested to delve into the endnotes may appreciate the additional material. Of course, I'm open to making adjustments if editors feel that it is necessary. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't press this (it's not really a sources issue). If other editors take the matter up, you will no doubt respond to them. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder about over-citation; are all the multiple citations necessary? Does the first simple statement, that sentence spacing is a matter of typographical convention, really need citing to three separate sources? Does [42] really require seven citations?
The short answer is yes. Again, the entire article will be vigorously attacked without the high standard mentioned above. If you look at some of the threads in the talk page, you will see editors here that vigorously disagreed that sentence spacing is a matter of typographical convention (based on their personal opinion). This was when the statment was supported with only one or two reliable references at the time. Now that it is well supported, that claim has stopped. I used multiple citations in other cases that were controversial also. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have adjusted the format of multiple citations, and it looks much tidier now. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The online references at the end of the list are not properly formatted, generally lacking publisher information and last access dates.
Working... Done. Used full cite web template for each link. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on the notes. I'd welcome any thoughts on my responses above, as well as a "support" or "oppose" on the article itself when your concerns are addressed. --Airborne84 (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Online references 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 and 121 all lack publisher and retrieval date. 114 lacks publisher info. I can't figure out the format of 113. (Note: I'd prefer to strike out my points when I'm happy they have been addressed. Thanks) Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm relatively new at the FAC page. My fault. --Airborne84 (talk) 21:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. All of the "Notes" are now in the same format and reflect their full inline citation templates respectively. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft (ref. 104) and Sheerin (112) are listed in "Further Reading". As cited sources they need to be promoted to the main References list. Brianboulton (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Good catch. Thanks. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources themselves, at a glance, look sound enough but I would welcome some response on the above points. Brianboulton (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and referencing points now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. I peer reviewed this and was asked to comment here. While the article has improved, I still find multiple problems with it. Some of these points follow.

  • The article spends a fair amount of time on the differences between American and British spacing (double) and various European countries spacing (single). The lead does not really mention this beyond the Englsih spacing / French spacing names, but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article.
Working. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I added some text that expanded on this topic in the second paragraph of the lede. Moved the later sentence that introduced French spacing to align with this. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are places where the article seems to disagree with itself or have errors or very unfortunate typos - for an example of the latter: "Mechanical type systems introduced near the end of the 20th century, such as the Linotype and Monotype machines, allowed variable sentence-spacing.[25]" Linotype and Monotype were introduced in the late 19th century (not 20th).
Fixed. That was indeed an unfortunate error. There's been quite a bit of "century" formatting going on recently (some by me in response to an FAC comment above), so I'll scrub through again to ensure accuracy in this area. If you had any other issues in mind here besides the dates, please let me know. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me reread the article and see if I can find other examples. SOrry to be so slow in responding. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the History section the article seems to contradict itself on French practice. First it says Early American, English, French, and other European typesetters' style guides (also known as printers' rules) specified spacing standards that were all essentially identical from the 18th century onwards. but two sentences later the article says Yet, even in this period, there were some countries (notably France) that used a standard word space between sentences—a technique called French spacing (illustration below). Which is it? Were the French "essentially identical" or were they different?
Addressed. An excellent comment. Some of these sentences were here before I arrived at the article (although that's not an excuse). I deleted the word "French" in the list of historical style guides because the references do not list a French style guide. I qualified the "French spacing" usage by identifying "some publishing houses (notably in France)". This more general statement is more accurate since I have no secondary sources that state what percentage of French publishing houses used French spacing and how many used traditional spacing. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of History needs a ref (as does the last sentence of the next to last paragraph)
Done. No problem. I realized when I started this that I might need a reference for every sentence. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article on double spacing is used as a source in the article and says "Doubling the word space after a sentence-ending period does not come from the use of typewriters. It was an existing practice that found practical application there." This view point is not mentioned here.
Addressed. It was, it just wasn't explained well. I added the sentence, "Although only a single type block was typically used, this resulted in the appearance of about a double space between sentences" in the first paragraph of the "History" section. The previous sentence alluded to that, but wasn't explicit enough. This is also why I use the wording "striking the space bar twice" throughout the article. Professional typesetters could "double the word space" between sentences by using "em space" (or other size) type blocks. Typists (on typewriters) could only double a word space by hitting the space bar twice. So, when Felici's webpage says "doubling the word space" didn't come from typewriters, that's true for the most part. I think the article better reflects that point now. And it was a good point. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is harder to quantify, but to me a FA needs to flow well and tell a good story. This article really does not do this for me (theough the source above does). this is a criterion 1a issue.
OK, I looked through and think I see what you mean. Some of this is "low hanging fruit" that can be addressed by better transitions between sections. I'll do that in the next 24 hours and see if that works. If not, it may require a bit of an expansion in the history section and a few more tweaks throughout. --Airborne84 (talk) 07:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start on this yet, but I thought about it. This may be the most useful comment on the article in the FAC nom. Of course, it requires the most comprehensive change. I think a rearrangement of the article (while retaining the content) best addresses this. I'm considering placing a section after the "History" section called "Transition to single spacing" that incorporates the last two paragraphs in the "History" section and transitions into "modern" or "Current literature." This might be best done by leading with the changes in style guides over the last 20-30 years (I'd have to incorporate a bit more material for this), and then examining the most current editions of language, grammar, and typography guides. The "digital age" section (summarized after splitting this section into it's own article) could then follow, completing the movement through time to the present day. This transitions to the controversy that still exists in 2010. The studies would come last. From my point of view, the studies are more relevant than the controversy section, but it would probably flow better to put the controversy after the digital age section since the studies encompass a much longer period (starting in the 1950s). I'd be very hesitant to try to break up the "studies" section. What would be gained by ensuring a complete historical flow from start to finish would be offset by making it harder for obtain all the data from the studies section. From reading through 70+ blog and other discussion sites on this topic, I can tell you that claims about readability and legibility are thrown around aplenty and I've never seen a single study cited when someone is challenged. This is the first summary of direct and related studies that exists. Any thoughts before I start? I'd hate to finish and find that other editors think another way was better, or I misinterpreted your above comment (even though I think these changes would be for the better anyway). --Airborne84 (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I rearranged the article's structure, expanded the history section, and improved the transitions between sections to make more of a "flow" throughout the article. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me re-read it and comment then, thanks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a quick re-read and it flows much better, thanks (and good work). I still have some very specific comments and will do my best to add them in the next 6 to 7 hours. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is now a question of the factual accuracy of the Transition to single spacing section (tag in the article and discussion on the talk page). Please resolve that first, then I will make more comments here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Studies section, the article cites an article indirectly " Direct studies include those by "Loh, Branch, Shewanown, & Ali (2002), Clinton, Branch, Holschuh, & Shewanown (2003) and Ni, Branch & Chen (2004)" with inconclusive results favoring single or double spacing.[71] as ref 71 is by Leonard et al., but the Leonard paper itself is not mentioned explicitly, which just seems odd.
The "Leonard et al." source isn't a study itself. It's a summary of a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation at the 2009 IVLA conference where the research team at the University of Georgia presented the findings of the 2009 study used in this article (Ni et al. 2009). The abstract in the "Leonard et al." Web source provided a summary of the other studies that was not in the 2009 study. The abstract itself also provides some points that might be interesting to readers of this article. Partially because of that, I used it as a source. This is available on the Web, whereas the studies are not. The studies published/presented in the annual IVLA conferences are only available by purchasing the entire IVLA conference bulletins—at $20 each. There are surely other ways to handle this, so if you see a better way, I'm certainly open to making an adjusment. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope these comments are useful. I am having computer issues and may be offline for the next day or two - sorry, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let me say first of all that I think this is a considerable tour de force. I'd never imagined that so much could be written on the subject of single vs. double spacing.
Thanks for the critical look. I think I can address your concerns. Please let me know what responses do not fully address them. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That leads me to my major concern about this article though, with respect to FA criteria 4, its focus.
I don't know if I addressed this concern adequately below. Please let me know if I did not. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The penultimate paragraph of the Related studies section, for instance, begins "Some studies suggest that readability can be improved by breaking sentences into separate units of thought—or varying the internal spacing of sentences." Yes, but what does this have to do with sentence spacing?
Addressed. I added an explanation for this in the text of the article. You're right, it wasn't immediately apparent for people that aren't familiar with the controversy. Although I introduced most of these concepts in the "Controversy" section, it's better off explained up front in this section. In this case, people that promote double-spacing state that breaking sentences up into separate units of thought makes text more readable. The studies discussed here analyze breaking phrases within sentences into separate units of thought. I included them because I didn't want this to turn into a "double-space bashing" article. Some of the results from these studies seemed to support the idea that "breaking text into separate units of thought improves readability". From my viewpoint, that helped balance the article and alleviate possible NPOV assertions. Because of numerous comments to "remove all extraneous verbiage" from the article, I moved most of the text related to these stud(ies) to the endnotes. In an effort to be careful about interpreting the results of these studies, I decided to summarize the results as neutrally as possible with the word "inconclusive". I would be happy to add some text back in along the lines that "some of these studies supported (xxx) idea" in favor of double-spacing as noted above. I just don't want editors claiming that I'm personally interpreting the studies in a synthesis. I'd be happy to hear your ideas on this. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm particularly concerned about the Style guides section, which seems largely to tell us that most style guides offer no guidance on the matter of sentence spacing, but themselves use single spacing, which seems to be at least within shouting distance of original research. Same with the Language guides section.
I understand your concern, but I think it's reasonable to handle this in this manner. My rationale:
1. The Modern Language Association (of America) states that they allow double sentence spacing in manuscripts, but expressly uses single-spacing in their text examples in the MLA Handbook and the MLA Style Manual "because it is increasingly common for papers and manuscripts to be prepared with a single space after all punctuation marks". I used that as a reference in the article to note that publications use their own text to provide examples for users as to their recommendation for style. Most style and language guides that I've seen (and I've seen more than I'd care to admit here) provide pages with examples of text that identifies correct style for a number of different conventions and style points. It would have been possible to provide dozens of style guide sources and specific page numbers that note that, but I thought it unnecessary since the MLA provides a useful source for this.
2. Other than the U.S., Canada and the U.K., most other countries (as limited by the scope in the lede) never used double-spacing. Typeset text used larger single spaces, but typists (typewriter users) in those countries were not taught to "double space." That's from my research, which is original, so of course, it's not included. I'm just explaining here why those style guides and language guide don't discuss this topic. Covering the style and language guides in those countries and simply nothing that they use the single space seemed to be the only good way to adhere to WP:WORLDVIEW. The alternative was not mentioning these guides at all, but that was a central theme in the first FAC nomination—lacking in "worldview". So, I had to address it. I see no good way of reconciling both of these competing issues adequately other than the method I chose. However, there may well be another method that I didn't consider. Please let me know what your thoughts are on this. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. I added another component which helps the comments about how the "style guides are themselves spaced" make more sense. I showed the sentence spacing progression in key style guides over time, both in the spacing of their text examples, and in their explicit instructions. I also deleted the paragraph on news style guides which listed a large number of style guides (which were "themselves single sentence spaced"), since it is reflected in the main article. I think this strikes a fair compromise. Primary sources can be used on Wikipedia (carefully), and this article now adequately addresses WP:WORLDVIEW in response to the previous FAC nomination (or does so in my opinion at least). --Airborne84 (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some parts even read like a "how to ..." manual, this from the Digital age section, for instance: "However, writers who wish to use wider sentence spacing should avoid striking the space bar twice—as this creates a no-break space which can lead to uneven justified text and additional unwanted spaces or line breaks in the text." From the Web browsers section: "In order to force a web browser to display multiple spaces, a special character sequence must be used (such as "&ensp;&thinsp;" for an en-space followed by a thin space, "&emsp;" for an em-space, or "&nbsp;&nbsp;" for two successive full spaces)."
When I first found this article it had an impressive array of bewildering "how to" items on this topic related to computers. I summarized them all...a lot, and discarded extraneous material. On the face of it, these items are useful for an encyclopedia. For example, if I come here (like I did) asking the question of "Do I use one space or two, and why?" I might see that the style guide I used said "single space." However, since I personally prefer the additional spacing of traditional spacing (an em space), I might then say, "OK, but in my DTP work, I want to use a slightly larger space." "How do I do that?" Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) provides the answer.
Having said that, I split two lengthy sections out into "sister articles". I went back and forth on whether to split out "Digital age" from this article and summarize it's contents here. I didn't because I didn't want to reduce its comprehensiveness—as one of the FAC criteria. No one else has noted a serious issue with the entire section in this manner, but it's a useful note nonetheless. I'd welcome your comments (and other editors) on whether this section should be split into its own article and its contents summarized in a paragraph or two. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Split "digital age" into a sister (main) article and summarized its contents—eliminating "how to" items in this article. --Airborne84 (talk) 05:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead needs to be rewritten as well I think. Why is Johannes Gutenberg introduced so early on, or indeed at all?
It's a limitation for the article which only considers printed/typeset text. This seemed like a reasonable way to exclude handwritten text, which becomes a topic meriting inclusion once you consider books over about 100 years old. The article's scope could alternatively be explained in a hatnote, I suppose. I just thought this was a decent way to do it. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed. Replaced Gutenberg reference with "introduction of movable type printing in Europe." --Airborne84 (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we restricting the discussion to Latin-derived alphabets? If so, why? What about languages using the cyrillic alphabet for instance. Is there something different about those other alphabets that meant this question of single vs. double spacing didn't arise, or is the title of this article wrong?
When I first encountered this article it needed a lot of work. There were a couple of bullets about Tibetan and other text that didn't really say anything and added nothing to the article. Although "double" spacing (striking the keyboard twice) was primarily used only in English, other aspects of the article (e.g. French spacing) merited inclusion. Historical (or traditional) spacing was also relevant in many other Indo-European languages, especially German. However, once you depart from languages using a Latin-derived alphabet, this topic becomes irrelevant. Opening this article to Sanscrit, Cyrillic, Cuniform, Hieroglyphics, Chinese, Japanese characters, etc. unnecessarily complicates the article and adds little to the topic. I would have mentioned this in a footnote, but that also smacks of WP:OR. --Airborne84 (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's a considerable piece of work, but it leaves me with more questions than answers. Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given this comment, perhaps the addition of a FAQ section on the talk page might be a good idea? Sourcing the information above about Sanscrit, Cyrillic, etc. in a footnote in the article itself would be an extremely onerous task. People don't write about sentence spacing in those languages because it's a non-issue. If you have other thoughts about how to address this, I'd be happy to hear them. --Airborne84 (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added FAQ page to the talk page. However, I think my adjustments to the article address the main questions you referred to—in the article itself. --Airborne84 (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:15, 27 May 2010 [4].

Dad's Army[edit]

Nominator(s): 07bargem (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a well written and neutral article that is completely neutral. It was been worked on my many people and incorporates all aspects of the show. 07bargem (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—Have you asked the primary contributors to the article, such as Bob Castle (talk · contribs), before nominating the article, as required by FAC instructions? Ucucha 19:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose- Hi, um, thanks for nominating this. Unfortunately, I don't really think it's even good enough to be a GA article at the moment, mainly due to a lack of references and prose problems. Therefore, although it has the potential to be an FA, due to the number of books and third party sources about the series, it does need quite a considerable amount of work to bring it up to that standard, or even back to GA. Yes Minister is the quality that it would need to be. Thanks for the nom anyway. Bob talk 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as per Bob's reasoning. This article was delisted from GA in February 2008, and checking its history I don't think much has been done since. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010 [5].

Sigi Schmid[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article in the push to improve the Sounders FC topic area. The article provides a complete overview of Scmid with highlights of his tactics and managerial style. It has undergone a couple copy edits from other editors and a peer review. All style guidelines should be met. My copy editing is subpar, but I hope any errors should be minor enough to quickly fix.Cptnono (talk) 04:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 07:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments.
  • Content
1. Seemed to fit most of the FA criteria. The only one I'd mention is "comprehensive". It was comprehensive in data, certainly. Yet, there may have been more to be said about his coaching style. I don't know, I'm not an expert in this area. This flows into the next anyway.
2. It seemed that each paragraph had a list of encyclopedic information, and the last sentence in many paragraphs had a single sentence tacked on that talked about style or some "color" aspect. Two possible suggestions IRT this. First there is the sentence (under "UCLA Soccer") "Although common among successful schools throughout the country, Schmid avoided recruiting foreign players to bolster the UCLA squad." At first glance, it seems that the sentence is a bit out of place. It's probably not, given the format for the rest of the article, so I'll just say that the transition from "fact" to "style" is probably less than successful in this one case. There may be a way to reword it so it's not verbose, but transitions better. Second, consider adding a "Coaching style" section to synthesize all the "style" sentences you have sprinkled throughout. I'll stop short of an "oppose" on the "comprehensive" criteria for an FA since I'm not an expert in the area or the person. I'll let other editors weigh in on this if they want. I'm sure you'll address it if others note it as well.
I considered adding a section devoted to style and tactics at one point. I haven't seen such a section in similar articles so I tried to keep it chronological. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tried radjusting and moving the foreign player line.[6] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not sure if the second adjustment is an improvement in that it still seems like a couple of sentences plopped in the middle—not normally seen in an FA. It's possible that simply tweaking a few words would have been fine, and allowed you to keep it at the end of that paragraph (just improving the transition into that sentence). It might still be OK like this, so hold off on making a knee-jerk correction based on this. Other editors will let you know if it's not going to work. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. You have a couple of sentences that are not "incorrect", but you might consider rewording them. E.g.: "Partially based on their mother dying when Sigi was 23 and Roland was 13, Sigi says that the two have a special relationship." Since the first 8-10 words in a sentence are the most important, this might be better written as "Sigi says that the two have a special relationship, partially because their mother died when Sigi was 23 and Roland was 13." (Note: It's not immediately clear why this would engender a special relationship. It's possible to add text explanations in the notes. See Rosa Parks and Absinthe for examples.) The final sentence in that paragraph might also be better reworded in that manner. Again, not "wrong". Just a suggestion.
I was originally hesitant on that line. I considered breaking it into two and your suggestion of the ref. Simply removed it since it comes across as unnecessary and vague.[7] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Images are nice. Consider if there are any more images that could be added. However, with what you have, your images and quotes are all right justified. it might be a bit of a visual break to stagger them to the left and the right.
I've heard differing views on this. I like staggering myself so I will happily take your advice.[8] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you staggered them. Other editors might feel differently, but neither method will affect the FAC criteria. It's just cosmetics. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Format
1. "German–American" probably needs an en dash. There may be some room for interpretation in this, but the WP:MoS under en dashes provides for en dashes "To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border)." Again, room for interpretation.:::Not sure. The article without a redirect.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck since it's not right or wrong either way. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. "He was named the Coach of the Year by Soccer America Magazine." It's not immediately clear what year in the text. You might add the year for this.
Fixed?[9] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Check all your punctuation IRT quotations marks with the WP:MoS. You have some commas and periods inside and outside ending quotation marks (which is fine with the logical punctuation used in the Wikipedia MoS), but there are some inaccuracies. Just scrub through on this. E.g.:
a. wrote that UCLA had shed "its 'underachiever' label."
b. stated that UCLA had "acquired a reputation for producing some of the nation's best goalkeepers."
Lame. I was going for WP:LQ and missed a couple. Fixed.[10] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Erik, Lacey, Kurt, and Kyle." These names aren't in alphabetical order, so I'd assume they are in age order? Maybe it's useful to list their ages then, but it may not be necessary. However, you list them in this manner and then elaborate about them individually in a different order. I don't know the rationale for the order of listing their names in the article. Just take a look to see if this paragraph needs some internal reshuffling for consistency. --Airborne84 (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it was a copy paste from the source and then the additions I made were just sloppy. I'll change it to alphabetical.[11] Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object I would have to say that only having one sentence each for the 2006 and 2007 seasons isn't good enough, especially as in football, the coach is the dominant person in the team and works out all the tactics. Especially as the team came last, which obviously would have garnered a lot of attention from pundits and critics. And in 2007, what specifically happened "a losing record". In general the article is skinny throughout as the coach usually chooses who to recruit, chooses the team, and forces all the tactics and strategy. In Australia, soccer is only the fourth most popular type football league, yet there is on average at least one article a day, on each team in the local city newspaper. I think more can be squeezed out easily, and it's unlikely a team would be last for a whole season without trying to implement changes in tactics, etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This could actually be seen as both a neutrality concern and not being thorough enough. I will see what I can pull up.Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like '06 and '07 were pretty bad. Filled it out some.[12]
  • Comment I believe the above concerns can all be addressed quickly and easily enough. However, I would be happy to resubmit this at a later time if it has turned into more of a peer review than a FA nom. Thanks for the comments Airborne and Yellowmonkey. Cptnono (talk) 05:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sources comments: Minor format issues:-

  • Refs 8 and 24 are oddly formatted, with the publisher given before the title. The standard format (which you have otherwise used, is author (if known); title; publisher; retrieval date.
Fixed
  • Ref 27: The publisher CNN/Sports Illustrated, not ESPN
Fixed
  • CNN/Sports Illustrated is a 24-hour online sports news service, and therefore should not be italicised - see 29, 32, 33, 41, 46
Fixed
  • Ref 64: needs a publisher (apparently Taiwan News)
Fixed[13]

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up It still is not comprehensive. From a second look, in 2001 and 2002 they won silverware and made the regional Champions League, but there are about two lines on these successful seasons. There is still a lack of weight on earlier stuff YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. A few lines added.[14] Cptnono (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010 [15].

His Band and the Street Choir[edit]

Nominator(s): Kitchen roll (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it meets the FA criteria. I've already brought it from start class to GA and think it would make a good featured article. I've also had the article peer reviewed and I've had positive feedback. Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 17:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)\[reply]

Initial comments. Interesting article. Just a few preliminary comments.

  • Lead. After reading the article, and re-reading the lead, I thought it rambled a bit. This sentence, The album was originally to be called Virgo's Fool, but for the album's release the name was changed. seemed unnecessary, or at least part of it is. Obviously the name was changed for the Album's release. If you're going to tell us this, then tell us why, but it didn't seem like a big deal. I'd really stick to what makes this album notable: the kinds of music on it, the simplicity of lyrics, the experimental (?) use of a capella plus the band, and other issues. Northern Irish is awkward. What exactly do you mean by that? He's from Northern Ireland?
  • Prose.
(1) You switch verb tenses a lot. Sometimes the album was, sometimes it is. I'd stick to past tense ... The album was recorded.... or even better, Morrison recorded the album...
I've reworded the article mostly to the past tense. I've left the song descriptions in the present tense because the recordings are still as they were forty years ago. Kitchen roll (talk)
(2) On the subject of verbs, you could really strengthen the prose by using more "active" (opposed to "passive") tense. Morrison recorded. The band played, the musicians sang, Morrison said, claimed, complained, etc. The album attained, reached, demonstrated, ....
I think I've adressed the issue Kitchen roll (talk)
(3) There is a lot of jargon here. The album "charted".... I know what you mean, but someone reading this who is unfamiliar with the jargon will have trouble.
reworded Kitchen roll (talk)
(4) Ambiguities/logic. The album was retitled before its release, from Virgo's Fool to His Band and the Street Choir, which was when Morrison first lost control of the album. Have you put the cart before the horse? Morrison lost control of the album, and (whomever) retitled it from Virgo's Fool to his band.... before its release. Is there a rationale for this?
Just my bad writing. I've reworded this Kitchen roll (talk)
  • Sources. Not all the sources cited are listed in the bibliography.
I've added the sources to the bibliography. Kitchen roll (talk)
Furthermore, what makes these sources reliable? (I'm not saying they aren't, I just want to know why they are.)
oocities.com. http://www.oocities.com/sfloman/vanmorrison.html#3.
allmusic.com. http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:abfoxqe0ldfe.
rocksbackpages.com
robertchristgau.com
elviscostello.info. http://www.elviscostello.info/articles/t-z/vanity_fair.001101a.html
The allmusic, oocities, Robert Christgau, and rock back pages reviews were all conducted by professional music reviewers. The Elvis Costello site was written by Costello himself, an acclaimed artist in his own right. Kitchen roll (talk)

Suggestions: I suggest doing another copy edit on it, just to fix some of the prose ambiguities. If you don't feel up to it, then perhaps check with someone at the Guild of Copyeditors—there is a elimination drive going on right now but someone will probably get right on it. Certainly it needs someone who is uninvolved to read it, as well. Interesting article, and I look forward to supporting it eventually. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
    1. 9, #32 --> should be number nine and number 32 per WP:MOSNUM.
  • The tables used in the Charts section aren't standard, use this as a reference instead.
  • That Oocities review is not reliable. Is Scott Floman a reputed critic? Does Oocities have a record of publishing noteworthy music criticism? I suspect he's just a fan posting his reviews on the Internet (correct me if I'm wrong).
  • Why do you devote a one-paragraph block quote to the Rolling Stone review? It may be perceived as bias; especially when there are equally reputable publications (Village Voice, CREEM) also reviewed the album. Also, why don't you quote the CREEM review?
  • Haven't used Creem review in prose because there's nothing to quote. Also I haven't used Village Voice in prose because I didn't know a review of the album was available. Where can I find it? Kitchen roll (talk)
  • Avoid 'spring'/'summer' as they indicate different times in the Southern Hemisphere. Could you use actual dates instead?
  • The article uses spring and summer, because the source Can You Feel the Silence? uses spring and summer and doesn't give specific dates. Kitchen roll (talk)
  • Can that paragraph where you name every session musician on the album be trimmed? No offense, but it simply doesn't make for very interesting reading for the general reader. Besides, this is why the Personnel section exists anyway.
  • Overall I don't feel a narrative coming through; the sentences and paragraphs are a little choppy, and do not flow very well. Compare with In Utero or Loveless, which I consider to be model featured articles.
  • For example, the first and third paragraphs of Recording are confusing to me. First off, the body of the article should stand independently of the lead, so you should introduce the Street Choir again. Why he wanted to use them should appear right up front as well. Also, the entire section on Recording doesn't mention that he used a backing band on the songs. Why is his unhappiness with the Street Choir songs mentioned twice in successive sentences?
  • "Rolling Stone reviewer Jon Landau believed the song is an excellent way to end the album." - that is subjective opinion, which should be in the Reception section, not in Composition.
  • "His Band and the Street Choir was intended to be released in time for Christmas 1970; therefore there was little discussion over the album's packaging." - not seeing the corelation . . . If the album was completed in Summer, wouldn't there be plenty of time till Christmas?—indopug (talk)
  • It takes a long time for albums to be produced, there's mixing, packaging, promotion etc, so I'd say getting the album out in November from being finished in late summer is pretty quick. Kitchen roll (talk)

Oppose - sorry I don't think the prose is FA standard and I agree with Auntieruth in that another copy-edit would be valuable. There are redundances and ambiguities. Here are some examples:

  • Here, "because at first it was not intended to amount to anything" - perhaps "be released" or "used on the final recording" might be better than the vague "amount to anything".
  • "a couple of" should be "two".
  • Here, "For this demo session three musicians were brought back from the Moondance sessions", For this demo session is redundant; the reader has already knows this from the line or two above.
  • "In order to" - spot the redundancy.
  • Here, "trumpeter Keith Johnson, contributed organ to the recording" - how about a simpler "played organ on"? And what sort of organ was it?
  • More redundancy here "For this recording session Morrison wanted..." - just say Morrison wanted....
  • There is jargon here, "He was unhappy with the songs cut with the choir"; cut should be recorded.
  • This sentence is a snake and needs to be shortened or cut up, "These songs were rewritten both lyrically and musically for their release on His Band and the Street Choir, because the original recordings featured different instrumentation and personnel to the band Morrison had assembled to record his new album."
  • "before" is better than "prior to".
  • More redundancy "rhythm guitar chords", why add chords?
  • Still more redundancy, "Horn overdubs were later added to the track".
  • There is some over-linking, piano for example.
  • This needs more explanation, "His Band and the Street Choir was intended to be released in time for Christmas 1970; therefore there was little discussion over the album's packaging". Only use "therefore" when the reason has been fully explained or is obvious from the context.

This is an interesting article but some more work remains to be done. Graham Colm (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've sorted what you've suggested about the prose (correct me if I'm wrong). I've also asked a copyeditor if they'd look over the article, so hopefully they'll identify some of my mistakes. I'll also have another look for improvements that can be made. Kitchen roll (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010 [16].

Saint Anselm College[edit]

Nominator(s): Ericci8996 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, this is technically a "renomination"; I nominated it for FA a few months ago, not realizing the proper procedures or requirements. Now, I believe these requirements have been met. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is an excellent article. I have worked tirelessly, with several other users to bring this article to the GA status it has earned. Citations are thorough, the images are beautiful and every section is comprehensive. However, I'm sure there is room for improvement, so feel free to suggest things. I intend to address all objections until it is promotion-worthy. I look forward to working with all of you!Ericci8996 (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Wow, the photos are lovely. I'll leave it to someone else to check the licensing of them.

  • Big question, and you might not be able to address it, but I want to get it out there right away, so it can be addressed by all and sundry. Don't most FAC's have a bibliography that lists the sources? This article has a detailed set of citations, but there is no actual list of sources cited. I recall with the article on the Inner German Border in October, there was a mad dash to compile a bibliography for that. What is the policy here? I'll bring it up on the project talk page, to, for discussion.
    • I'm told a separate bibliography is not a requirement. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another concern I have (having been a development writer for universities and colleges), the first few sections sound a lot like a proposal or pr release. Just a comment.
  • In the notable alumni section, I'd list Dominic DiMaggio separately, and include perhaps some other honorary degree recipients, or else integrate him into the text somewhere. More later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for your advice! I moved DiMaggio and I have no idea on how to answer your big question... also, please give me some hints on how I can edit the intro so it is not a PR release... Thanks!!! Ericci8996 (talk) 04:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm still concerned about the pov. The first few sections sound a lot like a proposal or press release. This problem is raised below, and I think you've got to deal with it. It sounds very one sided to me. That said, I have no idea how to find less biased material that you would actually be able to publish. The princeton review has it, of course, but that is hardly reliable. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article looks good to me. I believe it meets most FA requirements. Ryanj.mccarty (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: This is an interim list of points requiring attention:-

Tried to do a few of these below with the time I have tonite... Thanks for the suggestions *The links in the "External links" section are all cited in the article, and therefore should not be listed here. Good call, All that were listed are now removed Ericci8996 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the references, online publisher information is often given incorrectly. In many cases the publisher is not the web name but the person/organisation responsible for the site. Thus for ref 80 the publisher is The New York Times. For 86 it is The Boston Globe. Check for other instances
  • Names of journals/newspapers should be italicised within references. Non-journal sources should not be italicised. See 69, and check carefully for others.
  • Names should be consistent between references. For example, in 108 the publisher's name is given as Northeast10.com. In 109 it is given as NE10. Again, check for other instances Did NE10 link, will check for others as time permits
  • Pulisher information missing from 37 and 53
  • Incomplete or inconsistent formats: 24, 58, 134, 135, 137

*44 What is this? "Italian website"? - I was denied access

  • 67 - a subscription is required to access this. 67 does not require a subscription... the 67 I clicked is next to Ronald Reagan and it opens in google archives...Ericci8996 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 116: More information needed. Is this a book?
  • 126: spelling "Diocese" (122 not 126... fixed regardless, thanks for the heads up on that, I missed it!
  • 89: What makes http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/gephardt/gephnh.html a reliable source? ( I would figure a ".edu" address would make it semi reliable... however, I am rather new to wikipedia)Ericci8996 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the "edu", this is a "Democracy in Action" site run by self-styled citizen-journlist Eric Appleman. It has no connection with George Washington University. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 95: What makes this a reliable source? It's a blog. replaced Ericci8996 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 141 What makes http://www.amazingheroart.com/NewFiles/RobsBio.html a reliable source? your right, removed...Ericci8996 (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that a fairly high proportion of citations (around 40% at a guess) are to the college's own websites. This could affect the neutrality of the article. I'll look further at this. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Object A very strong POV is evident through the article, immediately upon encountering the claim about opposing grade inflation in the lead. A whole section in the main body, but no proof except the head saying so. Everybody says their organisation is the cleanest etc. It's fluff. The section on the politics institute has a giant section about lots of presidents and legislators visiting. This is undue weight. The point of a university is to do high-quality research, traning, not inviting lots of famous people to graduation ceremonies and the like. Enormous section on small environmental initiatives. More fluff about the students having to be of high charaacter; this is just their ad-pov, not independent. The whole article is not much short of advertising, and cites are placed before and after the punctuation; the latter is correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowAssessmentMonkey (talk • contribs) 02:40, May 21, 2010


YellowAssessmentMonkey - Most of your objections are opinion based... There is no way this article could have got GA if there were that many flaws with in it... I have followed the university guidelines in writing each section. A) The environmental initiatives are not small, they are campus wide... B) This article is far from an advertisement, again it would not have achieved GA, C) The punctuation's are small potatoes to fix 72.195.156.53 (talk) 13:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A whole paragraph on a recycling bin??? YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

  • Have to agree with YellowMonkey here. If the college is committed to preventing grade inflation then it should be easy to provide a secondary source.
  • This sentence early on in the lead - According to the college, the student body is selected not only for their academic abilities but also for their personal character - isn't notable in my view, as it's the mantra of many liberal arts institutions in the US.
  • Information on student demographics would be interesting, but appears to be lacking.
  • I see this passed GA a day or so ago - might need to cook before being brought to FA
  • At an excess of 7400 words the article is too long for the subject - needs some trimming.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose
  • Generally agree with Truthkeeper88.
  • The article is in places too favourable toward, or too trivially engaged with, the college. Examples (there are more instances):
  • "Members receive a card of congratulations, signed by the Dean of the College" Delete as irrelevant
  • "Saint Anselm College has resisted what the college sees as the grade inflation trend at many of America's college's and universities." See truthkeeper's comment. The section "Anti-grade inflation policy" should simply be deleted.
  • "institute is credited with raising the national profile of the college by incorporating the college in the New Hampshire primary, the first primary of the United States presidential election." - POV with no citation. Definitely not.
  • "Inside the Institute's main hallway hangs over one hundred images that represent the college's role in the political process; former Missouri congressman Richard Gephardt once recognized a picture of an elderly woman holding a sign "Gephardt for President" in a rather emotional moment as his own mother". That's nice for him, but a waste of our readers' time.
  • The entire "Environmental responsibility" section should be deleted as non-notable - it is not significantly different to any other typical organisation of its type.
  • As a measure of how over-long this is: the NIHOP section could be reduced to a few paras, and is instead looong, with subsections. Yes, it shoudl recognise some notable events there, but the content of this article should be confined to those points that are both specific to St A's, and to which St A's was relevant (and didn't just happen to be the place where somthing happened - eg. the Kennedy "Nixon button" quote").

Will keep an eye out on how it goes. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010 [17].

Fritz the Cat[edit]

Nominator(s): Sugar Bear (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has undergone much improvement since its last FAC and should be ready for promotion. Sugar Bear (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 23:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources: All sources look good, no issues here. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image There is one image under fair use that contains the proper license and reasoning for use in this article. --Brad (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm not exactly familiar with sourcing articles with fictional subjects but all appears in order here. Refs are consistent, prose is good etc. --Brad (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments As a Crumb fan I feel obliged to review this article. I thought the prose was good and it was overall an enjoyable read. A few suggestions for consideration: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs)

  • home made -> I thought this was supposed to be one word? Or is it hyphenated?
  • "well known" needs hyphen
  • "Robert Crumb cites Pogo as an influence on these early comics." Maybe add a few words about Pogo to give us some context
  • link hedonistic
  • I don't think the second quote in "Overview" is long enough to warrant a blockquote (according to MOS)
  • "John Canaday describes the punch line …. as "outrageous brilliance …" so, what was the punch line?
  • link American Greetings Co., LSD, serialized, Pitch (filmmaking)
  • "Krantz sent Bakshi to San Francisco, where Bakshi stayed with Crumb and his wife, Dana, in an attempt to persuade Crumb to sign the contract. After a week, Crumb left, leaving the film's production status uncertain." I'm confused… Bakshi visited Crumb, but then Crumb left? Please clarify what Crumb left
  • link power of attorney, misogynist, Dez Skinn
  • "At Crumb's request, a 10-page story drawn in 1964 and previously published in R. Crumb's Comics and Stories in 1969 was excluded from this compilation." Any story behind this?
    • Only what is stated in the inner cover of that book. No explanation is given why the story is included. I could guess that it either had something to do with the quality of the artwork, which is somewhat lousy compared to other Fritz comics compiled in these two books (Complete and Life and Death), or that the story in question featured Fritz engaged in incest. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • Maybe that incest bit should be mentioned, as it is typical of Fritz' behaviour. Sasata (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • several citations to book sources do not have page #'s
    • Could you specify which ones? (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • Strike that. I can comment on the book sources:
        • The Complete Fritz the Cat: There is no page number for the introduction.
      • Other times, the book in general is cited as a reference for the book being published, and thus, these do not need page numbers. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • does ref #8 have an issue #?
    • "Head Comix" was a single comic book, without an issue number. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • After doing some more looking, I agree with the comments below, there should be more discussion of the characters in the strip, and more examples to give us insight into Fritz' character. A couple examples from a Google Book search: Sasata (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • from here: Fritz attends New York University (but doesn't take any classes) … he "connects with radical hippies, causes a shooting, meets a biker rabbit, encounters activists with a penchant for making bombs."
  • from here: ""Fritz the No-Good" shows a bunch of male animals tying up and abusing a girlfriend."
  • Oppose and Comment - a large chunk of the article is given over to the animated film. That wouldn't be so bad except a) they already have their own articles and b) it is disproportionate to the coverage of the comics. I can't say I've read much of Crumb's stuff (though I would buy the collected works if I had plenty of spare cash) and so I looked forward to learning about this subject. I come away not having a great feel for the Fritz strips. One strip is described where Fritz disrobes a cat and then picks off her fleas, I'd welcome more in that vein so I get more of the flavour. I think the article's pretty good but I can't see myself supporting for featured status without a fair bit more work. It's badly failing Criteria 1(b) for me at the moment. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added another description, of the "Girl Pigeon" comic which was praised in New York magazine, and trimmed the segments on the film. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comments
    • Any incurring characters besides Fritz?
    • Even I was left wanting for more in terms of information on the comic strips, summaries of stories from The Life & Death of Fritz the Cat and The Complete Fritz the Cat would be nice additions, giving a concrete idea about the wild adventures of Fritz
    • Images: IMO, images of Robert Crumb and Ralph Bakshi would be nice additions. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added descriptions of Fritz comics and images of Crumb and Bakshi. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The new examples like "Fritz the No-Good" and "10-page story, drawn in 1964" are certainly on the right track, but still wanting for more. IMO for comprehensiveness, elaborate sections like "Publication history" and "Fictional character biography" similar to Batman are needed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greatly reconstructed the article. I don't think there's anything else to add, unless I'm mistaken. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
It is on the right track, but I still can't say it is a comprehensive article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, it's as comprehensive as an article for an underground comic can be. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose and comments

  • the film is mentioned disproportionately to the strip
    • I trimmed the section on the film some more, but even before I trimmed that section, there were two huge sections on the comics.
      • Half of the lead discusses the film.
        • The film is a major part of the strip's history. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • Now, there are three sections discussing the comics, while the film is discussed as part of the "impact" section. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • the publication history is confusing > states Fritz made his first appearance in 1959, but the next paragraph states the first public appearance was in 1965
    • Moved. That was referring to unpublished comics that Crumb and his siblings drew in notepads when they were kids. The first published story was in 1965.
      • Somehow you have to explain how a strip that was published so infrequently became so well-known. Consider moving and tweaking the reprint information into publication information, because reprints are also publications.
        • Done. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
          • Still not clear to a reader not familiar with the subject. Why did the particular strip become notable and a cult classic? The subject matter? Themes? Style of art?
            • This goes beyond what sources could provide for. The article explains everything that can be said about this strip. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

*information available on Help! would be useful > how often was it published; how often did it run the strip; why did it stop running the strip?

    • Help! ran the story twice. I rewrote to explain the magazine and its relation to Fritz the Cat. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

*The paragraph that begins with Crumb's experiences with LSD mentions that he created other characters, but doesn't explain how that is relevant, if at all, to the Fritz strip. In general the paragraph seems to lack cohesion

    • I removed the bit about Crumb's LSD experiences. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • There's a mention of the type of pen used to create the strip but nothing else about Crumb's drawing style.
    • Added a short bit about the art style. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
      • Better, but still needs development if information is available in sources.
        • Nothing further can be provided from sources discussing the subject. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        • There's nothing further I can add. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Repetion. For example, mentions numerous times that Crumb began the strip with his siblings.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check WP:ELLIPSIS for ellipsis usage - not sure the use of brackets is correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check your sources for deadlinks. The retrieval dates are three years old.
  • Check for MoS errors; a copyedit would help as well.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:47, 25 May 2010 [18].

History of British Airways[edit]

Nominator(s): Kyteto (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is one of the best airliner history pages on Wikipedia; I think its level of balance and thoroughness throughout is to the standard of great writing that should exemplify all such pages, but often this isn't the case, it is an exception rather than the standard grade, it is therefore exceptional in its quality. The topic itself is of fair importance to world aviation, as it walks the reader through the rise and downturn of British Airways, which became the most profitable airline in the world in 1993, and rapidly expanded following privatisation; its origins, twists and turns, and the usage of the Concorde, it is documented very well if I say so myself. Of all the articles I've work on in the last year, I regard it as the best of its type, and t

That should be that for the broken refs, think they're gone now. Kyteto (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; no dead links left. Ucucha 18:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I love flying British Airways! Well done on the article so far, although I do see a few issues that need to be addressed:
  • The external link checker says that there are some broken ELs, and some of the redirects may need to be checked.
  • There's nothing wrong with them, per se, but I find the wording of the section headers somewhat strange. Could just be my personal opinion, but "Consolidation and Concorde (1970s)" or "Consolidation and Concorde: 1970s" is more logical than "1970s – Consolidation and Concorde"; perhaps it's the dash, with the years first, that's bothering me?
  • Trying it with a ';' instead of '-', let me know if this is more visually appealling. I'd prefer to keep the dates on the left hand side of the period titles as it looks neater in the contents box; however I'm open on this one if it is a sought change. Kyteto (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I appreciate the number of citations, and don't doubt that the material is entirely verifiable, I suspect that overciting may be a problem here. Some paragraphs contain two or three (sometimes even more) citations for each claim, which makes the text blocky and difficult to read. Here's an extreme example of two back-to-back sentences under "Consolidation and Concorde":
  • "British Caledonian had to withdraw from the East African routes as well as from the London-New York and London-Los Angeles routes in favour of BA.[25][26][27][28] In return, British Caledonian became the sole British flag carrier to the entire South American mainland, taking over routes former served by British Airways to Colombia, Peru and Venezuela.[28][25][27][29][30]" Are nine citations truly necessary for two (seemingly matter of fact) sentences?
  • Redistributed and deleted references where bulked together, at least a dozen now gone. The extreme example has been significantly reduced and spread. 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The citations are not formatted consistently; italicize publications like New York Times and The Independent, but websites like those maintained by the British Airways are not italicized. For news articles, you do not need to include the place of publication -- I see a few "London: The Independent" and similar attributions. Also, make sure that dates are formatted consistently: 04-05-2010 or 4 May 2010 in published/retrieved dates?
  • I've sorted all the dates, I believe, the location tags are now gone, and the italics...are improving. I'll get there, but there's likely going to be one or two always illuding me, hiding within 200 references. Improvements ahoy. Kyteto (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Bibliography" does not seem to be that at all; are these books for Further Reading? Also, capitalization needs to be standardized and place of publication needs to be included along with the publishers.
  • Some of them could be put under Further Reading; some were used as inspirations of thought and theme, if not direct quotations or relivance to passages, and a few of them actually do have references in the many citations made. I'll seperate some out some into Further Reading now. Kyteto (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, is there a reason the books listed under "Bibliography" are not used as sources? Have they been consulted?
  • I believe I have looked at all on the list that I could find an available copy of, either free examples or hard copies. A few of them are originals from the main article, and I'm not sure what their influences were, and I couldn't want to necessarily cut the credit if they did have an active role with another editor. Some will be shifted, ones I know were marginal in my constructions or looked like interesting topical books. Kyteto (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the article in full, so these are just a few things that jumped out at me while quickly looking at the article. On a sidenote, I'm not sure the Good Article review was as thorough as it should have been, and I would have suggested a Peer Review before making the leap to FAC. Maybe next time. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunantly a daft bot shot through the article today of all days, and decided to throw up a whole bunch of Access Dates in a format other than the one that was used most of the way though the article...It also added the locations. Sometimes bots are far more harm than good, is it okay to leave the locations, else its own will likely simply let it rejam the article to how it wants it to be. Pity he couldn't have used it to bring it into uniformity far faster than typing it all out by hand again... Thansk for the commentry. There was a three month long peer review, there was only two comments and both were made by me; the community that reviews articles of this subtype is effectively dead, and I was advised this was the only avenue I had besides waiting for several years to pass in the hope somebody might say something! :P So the review process beforehand was kind of thin, sad really. Kyteto (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's a bother, but the citations need to be made consistent; if you list the location for some of them, you have to list it for all of them. Same thing with date formatting. It's a tedious process, but such things really help an article's readability and overall professional appearance. FYI, there's always WP:PR, which accepts any-ole' article, no matter the subject material. There's typically a backlog, which means you generally have to wait a week-or-so, but there is at least one reviewer. I always list an article there before FAC, and I know that others consider it a necessary step for them, as well. María (habla conmigo) 19:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I've spent two hours already reformatting refs, nowhere near done. I HATE bots fooling around with no supervision. All Location tags have been removed from ordinary references now, continuing still with other data. Kyteto (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe most of my previous concerns have been addressed, save for the biblio/sourcing, which seems to be ongoing. Because I still haven't read the article in full, however, I have to hold back on making an official judgment. Everything looks much better, technically-speaking, however -- great work! María (habla conmigo) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • Note: alt text is currently no longer required for FAs, and the guideline is under discussion from what I've seen. However, if one image in the article currently has it, and the rest don't, blah blah blah consistency etc. :) María (habla conmigo) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can find any examples of Alt text, though I barely understand what it is. Certainly can't see any images that have the "|alt=" or anything like that which the wikipedia page suggests. As it isn't required, and I can't find any trace of it, can the example either be pointed out to make it blatently obvious where it is so it can be oblitorated for consistancy, or shall we run on the assumption that it isn't there at all, in which case consistancy is present in this issue and thus no changes need to be made. Also the External link has been booted out, the list has been added, and I'm not sure how the Template:Infobox Aviation can be used in this context, none of the othe airliner history articles use it and I have nothing to go on at what to make it do or enter into it to make it useful. Kyteto (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the image in the British Airways navbox that is appearing with alt text although it is not formatted as such. If there is no longer a requirement for alt text can I suggest that the check tool link is removed from the toolbox? Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just implimented the Template Infobox, finally got inspiration for what would be ideal to put into it.Kyteto (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That has improved the look of the page, should the title be 'History of British Airways' to match the article? Looking at the lead section it seems to replicate the main BA article in places (probably from a split). There are personalities in section headers (Ayling, Eddington and Walsh) that are not yet mentioned in the lead. I wonder if it would be better to show in full the titles of BOAC and BEA with the abbreviations in parentheses afterwards at the first instance, I think that is standard WP practise? The current cabin crew industrial action is covered in the article but not mentioned in the lead, it's a fairly significant development. Sorry for the late reply, have been on holiday, cheers. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 10:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with much more than the passing reference to the industrial troubles of today. The Union, UNITE, practically throws a major strop every two years, it's only mentionable now because of the recession and the heavier-than-usual reforms that have been implimented to help the airline through it. I don't see the industrial action itself as anything notable, a quick Google seach just before making this comment paints the image of this basically being the norm for the last twenty or so years, UNITE just likes striking and making a lot of noise, this one is no more remarkable than the 2007, 2004, 2002, 1999 or so on and so on, to me at least. Kyteto (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Proofread done - I made five or six minor changes. If you look at the article history there's one, with the longest edit summary, that might bear re-checking as I'm not sure my fix is to the intended meaning. Otherwise looks very good.
    • Readability / prose style - very good. Airlines are not the slightest bit in my zones of interest. I flagged a bit towards the end but the article very much kept me engaged which is no mean feat given my scant interest in the subject. I didn't notice any clunking or garbled sentences.
    • Structure - takes a chronological approach and that seems the best and most obvious way to go about it. Very good.
    • Afraid I'm still not doing the support/oppose thing despite people's increasing impatience with me to do so :o) - Basically I still need to be much more aware of the criteria which I will revise soon. I'm just not up to it for health reasons right now so am limiting my input to proofreading and lending a hand with that aspect of things. 'Light duties' as it were. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your input has been useful; I'm very pleased to know that others find the Readability to be very good, it is something of a relief! Everyone's statements and comments have been useful so far; does anybody feel I need to address their issue raised more thoroughly, or has it been sufficiently straightened out? Kyteto (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and referencing comments: Action is awaited on a number of issues raised in the review, above, relating to references, e.g. consistent italicisation of newspaper and journal names, the status of the bibliography etc. Assuming that these are being dealt with, there are other issues:

  • Wikilinking of newspaper and journal names seems haphazard at present. The principle should be the same as within the article - link at first mention.
  • There are numerous instances of "New York Times" rather than the correct "The New York Times". Also, in ref. 90, "Washington Times" rather than "The Washington Times"
  • Refs 10, 169 and 172 are cited to "The Telegraph". The newspaper's correct name is "The Daily Telegraph" as in 179, 181, 191 and 193.
  • Ref 66 is the single citation to a book in the dodgy bibliography. In the ref, the author is given as "Martyn, Gregory" and the year as 2000. In the bibliography he is "Gregory, Martyn" and the year is 1996.
  • Ref 90 (The Washington Times": it needs to be noted that this is a subscription service.
  • You should reformat ref 95 so that it is clear that the citation is to p. 62 of the World Airline Directory
  • Ref 155: correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the newspaper in question is called "Knight Ridder Tribune".

The above, while needing attention, are all relatively minor matters. My main concern relating to sourcing is whether the history of a major corporation can be written almost entirely on the basis of newspaper and online journalism. Why has no effort been made to use the contents of the books that have been listed? Has any serious attempt been made to survey the literature and perhaps identify other texts that could have been used? Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is thanks to you that you main area of concern has now been greatly addressed and the article has been made better. I would protest at the use of the term "no effort has been made", a more appropritate and polite term would have been "no effective effort has been made", as there were hours wasted by myself trying to search for books and and find relivant texts, much of the time it was immensely slow and painstakingly in vain. In the current rebuilt revision of the article, 10% of all references now lead back to books, the Bibliography has been readdressed with the book list nearly doubled, this aspect is now more covered. I find the book searches more tiresome and slower than looking for exactly the eras and events I plan to cover in detail, and often used the books beforehand as more for their theme and tone that factual statements as that simply took longer to do. I felt that the news sources met the WP:RS terms and thus were just as valid, if correctly used with thorough implimentation and effective study, this article has been a great learning experience on the subject while re-writing it over and over to improve it. The lack of availability of many books on topic, and the easy availability of what was used, lent itself to developing the current state of affairs. Can you make further reflection with the new changes to address your concerns, do they go far enough? Kyteto (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I appreciate that you have worked hard on this article and I am sorry if my comments gave you a different impression. With a featured article candidate, however, it is the best, rather than the easiest available, sources that should be used. In an article such as this, I would expect the earlier history to be cited mainly to acknowledged aviation history texts, with news and online sources used for more recent events. You have now introduced some book references, but they are still sparse in the areas where I would expect them to predominate. I will leave it to other reviewers to decide whether the present sourcing satisfies criterion 1(c).
Meanwhile, there is still work to do on the more minor issues I raised. Newspaper titles remain unitalicised; some of these titles are still wrongly given ("New York Times" et al); we still have The Telegraph'; "Knight Ridder/Tribune" should be "Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News"; the first two books in the bibliography are uncited and therefore should be listed as Further reading, etc. I'll check again in a couple of days. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll address the other points shortly when I have time again; but removing the first two books would be inadvisable, ass it would be potentially create the sitauation where this article could be accused of plagurism. There were no direct citations, but Cooke's theming was the basis for some of my own lines of inquiry, to remove that credit would essentially be deleting the sourcing justly deserved; and would be highly disapproved of to say the least of any proper Bibliography. Kyteto (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On further advice on the normal proceedures, the sources have now been move, albiet with my feelings that it is inappropriate in a way. Referencing to books now composes 18% of all references; the bibliography now contains more books that most Aviation FA-level articles, this looking increasingly sufficient in my eyes, but is this the case? I'll focus on the formatting tomorrow, today was attention on the citation sources, which went okay. Kyteto (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The minor formatting appears to be done; I either have eliminated all the flawed examples of the italtics now on my fourth run through, or there are so few it isn't spottable within reason. If I do catch one, I'll obviously fix it, but it shouldn't be as serious an issue now that the predominant principle is set within the bulk of references. The publisher names have been fixed swiftly as well. Not sure how to mark the Washington Post ref that needs a subscription, there doesn't appear to be a formatting type that jumps out announcing its role in this function that I can find in the Cite Web/Cite News templates homepages, so exactly how to mark them is beyond my knowledge of the coding used on Wikipedia. Kyteto (talk) 18:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further referencing issues: You have responded to my earlier comments and made various improvements. However, there is more to be done to comply with what is required in a featured article:-

  • You seem to have covered the italicisation of newspaper and journal titles. However, italicisation should not be applied to organisations or entities that are not newspapers or journals. Hence, "BBC News", "Reuters". etc should not be italicised.
  • There is still at least one New York Times (without "The"), and four mentions of Washington Post (without "The")
  • [217] Financial Advice.co.uk - who are they? How do we know this is a reliable source? I can't find any information about who is behind it, perhaps you know.
  • In the bibliography, book titles should be given formal capitalisation, thus: Introduction to British Politics; The Airline Business, etc.
  • As to the Washington Post subscription, that appears to be a dead issue as you have seem to have dropped that reference. Should the matter arise elsewhere, just use the template (subscription required)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Kyteto (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the italicisations issues in references are not all done. See 11, 109, 169, 187, 188, 196, 207, 211, 215. In ref 213 the publisher should be given as International Business Times. These matters may seem tiresome, but it is important that you get these right if the article is to be featured. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again logging action as completed, standing by for further instructions. Kyteto (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please look again at my note, above, which reads: "italicisation should not be applied to organisations or entities that are not newspapers or journals. Hence, "BBC News", "Reuters". etc should not be italicised." Then look again at refs 11, 109, 169, 187 and 188. Rather than "standing by for further instructions", perhaps you should thoroughly familarise yourself with the MOS conventions relating to citation formats. I know it's tedious and tiresome, but not as tedious and tiresome as this repeated trawling through, to check for format errors. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments -- I've gone right through this article now, as can be seen by my usual copyedits, and am pretty close to supporting. The prose is very good IMO, structure simple and logical, detail appropriate and neutral in tone, and illustrations excellent. I tend to agree somewhat that the balance of sourcing could be shifted a bit more to books, but that seems to be under way and if a little more can be done there (mainly, as Brian says, re. the early years) I'll be quite happy. I applaud Kyteto's concern with removing uncited books from the bibliography when they've informed his approach, however moving them to Further Reading is the WP MOS guideline. On the other hand, if they've been important in the article's development, why not cite them on a couple of the major points? Then they can safely remain in the Bibliography, and you're also getting in more book citations... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I still had the book to cite from. :) But I've been digging up others, pooling through other wiki articles, internet searchs, and the library to see what I can get, it hasn't been bad. Struggling with the early years really, as most of the books from that time aren't even previewed online, and I'm struggling to find the relivant pieces of info in the few that I can access. I'll keep hitting it, but it's slowing down as I run low on originality in my hunt. Better lucky another day than today perhaps. Kyteto (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -- looking quite promising; I read through the article twice (and having worked on some of the references when it was part of the main BA article, it was familiar), and felt it has improved a lot, a credit to Kyteto's hard work and other editors. I made some minor edits for consistency and flow; expanded the lead to summarise the body in more detail; and arranged the picture layout a bit. Hopefully the above suggestions can be addressed to the satisfaction of fellow editors, and move this nomination forward. The improved referencing, chronological organisation, and article details and scope are very well done. SynergyStar (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to leave a note here stated that I have completed all tasks assigned as I see possible, and thus have no course or direction for making more edits and improvements to the article. Further judgements by those other than myself will determine my next actions, for now I shall wait. Kyteto (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work, Kyteto, and diligence. I've read through the article several times now, having made some small edits for flow and order, and it looks good. SynergyStar (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok.

  1. UK needs a very good reason to be linked. Please see WP:OVERLINK. See also WP:MOSDASH concerning page and year ranges. I've run the script through it. Does "airline" provide useful information? It's a word all English-speakers are supposed to known, isn't it?
I believe the question of if "airline" is worth linking to or is a worthwhile article on wikipedia would be a question for the Aviation taskforce, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It seems to be well enough developed to be useful to somebody who doesn't well understand what this kind of commerial aviation business is, it has more than a few perculiarities, compared with closed national operators or the state-regulated providers of air transport that are common in some nations. Kyteto (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. early-2000s, not normally hyphenated like "mid-".
  2. "and later to Canberra, Australia"—who would bother flying there (it's tiny), before establishing routes to the large Australian cities? I think it doesn't need a link. By contrast, "Johannesburg does need a link if you're not adding ", South Africa" (but I suggest removing the link and adding the country).
Why bother to fly there, that's an issue for the 1960s Concorde development team rather than the Wikipedia article. If it was officially recorded as a planned consideration, as it has by the reference given, then it is true and mentionable. The fact it makes no commercial sense is not our job to evaluate as editors, we record events and official observations, not build business cases on what would and wouldn't be good routes as that would be OR. Kyteto (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Image size and placement: the black and whites of airplanes are really good, but why so small? They need to be boosted (try 240px or 250 so we can distinguish the model without a magnifying glass), and consider all on the right side? The colour pics: hasn't colour photography come a long way since the 70s. Talk about washed out. And let's not crowd it out like the Heathrow article: do we really need that very very plain pic of head office? Could be any head office, couldn't it. Just because it's in the Commons doesn't mean use it.
All of the images are non-forced in size right now, which is what is standard to most wiki pages and most images outside of the lead image of an article or those of top importance. I believe this is actually preferred by the MOS to not force regular images outside of sizes, but if you are interested in certain images you can click on them to see the larger version on its own. I actually didn't adopt the Head Office picture, I didn't want to offend the user who recently added it by ditching it at once, but if it is resented then it shall be lost. I didn't take every image going, far from it, more than 80% of the Commons images on topic are not used here. Kyteto (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. What is "Landor livery"? You certainly couldn't pick it out from the pic. By contrast, the "British Airways Boeing 777-200ER with ethnic livery introduced in 1997" pic is large enough, but what is "ethnic" about the livery? Oh, Scotch tape? Bizarre. Embarrassing, actually. And is that a christian cross I see? And what is "ethnic" about the "British Airways Boeing 767-300ER with ethnic livery" pic? That e word is questionable: does it mean "non-anglo"? I hope no one is offended by the cultural-centric angle.
I actually don't know why they called them the Ethnic liveries; but that's the exact wording BA(and the refs) use. They look like a three year old child has splatted his paint brush on the tail in every colour in my own opinion, but apparely they were supposed to be the work of 'talented artists representing the destinations across the globe that are frequented by British Airways'. I see no need to invent terminology where it is given, if the officials give the term 'ethnic livery' that's the one to go for unless a better and more common one exists. Landor livery is explained on the main article, the aircraft paint-job developed by a company named Landor, hence the name, its just the ID of the plane colour scheme at one point in company history. If you want to know what Landor livery is, compare all the planes marked with the Landor phrase with the ones of today; black undersides verses blue, regal tailfin art verses post-modernist swirl in the Union Jack colours ect, you'll pick it up. Kyteto (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. MoS says a space between ... and the next word. But we know it starts mid-sentence by the initial small letter, so why bother with the ellipsis points anyway? But it is required in the Walsh quote further down.
  2. "though" is common in AmEng; I don't mind it here, I guess.
  3. upon: "on" nowadays? Tony (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Dabomb87 21:56, 24 May 2010 [19].

History of Hertfordshire[edit]

Nominator(s): —S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status. This is my first attempt at a FA, so I expect there will be tweaks I need to make!—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: "Tweaks" are definitely needed, I'm afraid:
  • All of the works in the Bibliography require publisher locations. Please also remove "No ISBN" from the books that were published before ISBNs came into use; it's kind of obvious.
  • The citations need quite a bit of format work. "'The Early Mesolithic Period', Hertfordshire County Council, retrieved on 9 August 2009." vs. "'The Later Anglo-Saxon Period", Hertfordshire County Council. Retrieved on 31 July 2009." for example. Please make consistent throughout.
  • There are numerous links simply titled "BBC", but that's the publisher, not the title of the individual articles/pages. Make sure to include title, publisher/website and accessdate; also, if applicable, include author and original published date, such as with some of the BBC/Daily Mail/Independent/Guardian, etc. links.
  • Is it necessary to denote the quoteboxes with... "Quote"? I'm fairly sure it's obvious what they are. :) The quotebox in the lead appears strange on my screen, as if it's kind of dangling off the map; I also have no idea who Richard Lydekker is, so context may be needed.
  • Blockquotes are for quotations that are three lines or longer; the letter quoted in "Seventeenth century" is only two lines.
  • There are quite a few short, choppy paragraphs consisting of only two sentences. While I understand the inherent need to separate thoughts while writing, it's very jarring on my eyes as a reader; I definitely suggest consolidating some of these sparse paragraphs, or else fleshing them out. The former would be easier, of course.
  • Needs a copy-edit throughout for wordiness and clarity. The first sentence in the first section states: "The land now called Hertfordshire has probably been occupied since about 12,000 years ago in the Mesolithic period." An abbreviated version could be: "has been occupied for approximately 12,000 years", with clarifying addition of "since the Mesolithic period". Other examples may exist throughout, and a c-e or two never hurts.

That's it for now. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 20:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck the technical bits, nice work. María (habla conmigo) 16:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SChurchillDuchsMarl_BestLo.jpg could do with a better caption, perhaps along the lines of Sarah_Churchill,_Duchess_of_Marlborough#Assessment, otherwise FAc3 is fine Fasach Nua (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Starting work on these matters now; I've ticked those I think I've resolved. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad progress is being made, but please see the instructions on the FAC mainpage: "Use of graphics or templates including graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) is discouraged, as they slow down the page load time." :) María (habla conmigo) 01:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... except in the case of Fasach Nua's remark, since he objected.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... okay, not ticking off the things I've done at all. Apologies to anyone I've mortally offended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe all of these concerns are addressed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made a further copyediting pass in response to Yllosubmarine's assessment.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Just two points:

  • the portrait of King Stephen is obviously c. 1500 (not contemporary); I think this should be mentioned in the caption.
  • in the 16th century section: the last paragraph is unsourced; and Lady Katherine Grey's marriage was not exactly betrayed by the Earl of Leicester, though he told the Queen after Katherine asked him to. The important point is that she was eight months pregnant and didn' t know what to do about her secret marriage and so on. Perhaps the best would be simply to state that Elizabeth was furious when she found out about the marriage and declared the marriage and children (there were two of them) illegitimate. If you need a source, I have one or two. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in this context the ODNB entry should be sufficient; sadly it's not free, but in the U.K. people with any public library card have access, I'm told. Anyway, it's o.k. if you put it along the lines that Elizabeth was furious when she found out etc. Buchraeumer (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan Doran, ‘Seymour [Grey], Katherine, countess of Hertford (1540?–1568)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 accessed 15 May 2010 (sunbscription required).
  • Seems to be o.k. now. I'm not sure I can read the whole of the article, good luck! Buchraeumer (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • Footnotes
    • Most of the footnotes (at last three-quarters) are uncited. Statements such as "It was probably the largest city in Western Europe for almost all of Hertfordshire's history" need sources. This applies to all footnotes, unless they are minor clarifications of the text.
    • Footnotes should not contain speculative or editorial comment such as "There is an interesting insight into literacy rates in Hertfordshire around this time to be gained here."
      • Still a slight tendency towards editorial comment, e.g. in note 10 which says "this is hotly disputed" without saying by whom. Footnote 8 is an unnecessary side comment, though in the text you should not refer to "Empress Maud". Possibly "Maude", but in the English-speaking world the lady in question is known only as "Matilda". Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations
  • Response: In evaluating WP:RS, you need to consider the nature of the information being sourced as well as the nature of the source itself. In this case it's uncontroversial:- I'm using the school's website as a source for the school's founding date. I could source this information to Robinson (1978), but I did not because I wanted to use a wider variety of sources for the article rather than relying on the relatively few print sources I have.
  • If there is a better source, even for uncontroversial information it is better to use it, rather than introducing a substandard online source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you feel about this, which gives the school's founding date as "around 950"? Reliable? I'm a little conscious of the number of references I've made to Robinson.—S Marshall Talk/Cont19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great source, but unfortunately it only refers to the foundation of the church in about 950; it doesn't mention the school's founding as far as I can see. Still, you've made the effort. If no other editor objects, should you prefer not to cite Robinson I won't press for the replacement of your original source. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bell's Cathedrals: This should be formatted as a normal book source, thus:
Perkins, Thomas (1903): Bell's Cathedrals: The Cathedral Church of Saint Albans London. George Bell & Sons. (A page reference is necessary.)
    • Pope Adrian IV: this should not be accessed via Wikisource but should be cited to the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, thus:-
Pope Adrian IV 1913. The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York Encyclopedia Press Inc. 1913
    • Ref 72 need s a more informative entry. What is the article being cited? Who is the author?
  • Response: Thank you for reminding me of WP:OBVIOUS. The article cited is, of course, Thomas Walsingham. I've not put the author down because the bibliography already contains all the information I have about authorship of the CBD.
  • You still need to format this properly, notwithstanding that the bibliography contains another CBD reference. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain in what sense it isn't "properly" formatted? I'm not familiar with the arcane and confusing FAC source-citing rules, which is why I've been through all the sources so many times, so I'm afraid I need it explained in words of one syllable. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 81 needs reformatting as a normal book source (see Perkins, above)
    • Ref 98: No need to show the url within the format
    • Ref 100: Spelling (Beauclerk): The proper title for this article is "Charles Beauclerk, Duke of St. Albans (1670-1726)" Publisher information is Nash Ford Publishing, Berkshire 2003.
    • Ref 102: Publisher is "Office for National Statistics"
    • What makes http://www.notable-quotes.com/c/cowper_william.html a reliable source?
  • Response: Again, consider the information being cited. It is uncontroversial that William Cowper wrote these words, and I'm using a quote-sourcing website as a source for a quote. Diversifying the article's sources was important to me.
  • Diversify away, but to a better quality source - a book of Cowper's verse, Oxford Dictionary of Quotations, etc... Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, it is unpaginated and doesn't have "God moves in a mysterious way". Here is a reference you can use:
Partington, Angela, ed. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996. ISBN 0-19-860058-5
  • Response: I'm frankly a bit surprised that this question comes from a British editor. Would you object to using the White House website as a source concerning a US president?
  • The principle is as expressed above - use the best available source, rather than, as here, what is essentially a PR website, and a badly written one at that. Incidentally, you should add the words "Second Marquess of Salisbury" to your text, since no one as ever heard of him under his given names of Robert Arthur Gascoyne Talbot Cecil. Brianboulton (talk) 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: You have still not identified Robert Arthur Gascoyne Talbot Cecil in your text as the Marquess of Salisbury, though the title is used later. On a similar issue, not many people will know of a prime minister called "William Lamb", since he held office as Lord Melbourne.
*Fixed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will complete my review when the various outstanding sources matters have been addressed. Please contact my talkpage when this is done. Brianboulton (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, references look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: one point outstanding on footnotes) Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearing support with comments:
    • Proofread done - some minor edits made and wikifying added, otherwise looks very good.
    • Top of article - placement of the quote looks slightly awkward on my screen; I have the leading paragraphs then the table of contents with the quote box facing the contents box... it just seems to dangle a little unhappily somehow. Consider placing it elsewhere; perhaps in the 20th century section since that's where the quote comes from, though I do see why you would like it near the top. It's not a deal-breaker by any means.
    • Section: Early history - No reference in the final paragraph for assertion that Offa was buried in Bedford.
    • Section: Twelfth Century - 2nd parag - Re, Baldock market and fair... says 'last five days in all' but should either be 'lasts' or 'lasted' (I know not which).
    • Section: Twentieth Century - very bizarre to mention Shirley Temple in relation to Graham Greene; surely that's not the best thing to attach to the writer? That's not his legacy. Better to put something less peculiar such as "writer of Brighton Rock" or something equally pedestrian.
    • Examination of article v FAC criteria
    • Prose style - LIMITED - I struggled to remain engaged I have to say. Yet the article has to cover an awful lot of ground, so there isn't any leeway for any kind of narrative to emerge. It is, of necessity, one thing leading on to another unrelated thing. I suppose one could consider whether there's anything that has characterised the county throughout its history and adding something on that (without straying into original research). But reading it as a presentation of facts, I didn't notice any horribly clunky sentences, unwanted alliteration or terrible chiming; so the prose style - given the limitations - was otherwise very good.
    • Comprehensive - NOT QUALIFIED TO JUDGE
    • Well-researched - YES - appears to use a good number of different sources and all are listed wonderfully well.
    • Neutrality - V.GOOD - I can't divine any axes to grind. Article doesn't seem to "cheer lead" for the subject.
    • Stability - EXCELLENT - No sign of any editing strife in the article's several years of history at all.
    • Lead - V.GOOD - A good and concise overview.
    • Appropriate Structure - YES - Takes a chronological approach, which seems the obvious and most well-suited to the subject. It might be nice to see other articles such as Brewing in Hertfordshire and the like to pick up some of the themes running through the article and running with them.
    • Consistent Citations - NOT CHECKED
    • Images - NOT CHECKED - (I am not really familiar with all the necessary policies)
    • Length - comments - I haven't checked for the kb limit, but the article doesn't seem to give undue weight to any particular part of the history; it seems equally balanced throughout. I didn't spot any obvious candidates for things to be hived off to a daughter article.
  • bodnotbod (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for those comments. That quote box placement is something several editors have brought up. I'd like to keep it near the lede if possible, though. The article is 68 kb long.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm a fan of Hertfordshire - parts of my family come from there - and its history is intriguing, but this article isn't ready. Though most sentences are grammatically correct and I don't doubt the cited facts, the overall text is consistently poor.
  • There is a general problem that the article reads (in some, not all, sections) more as a chronology of events that occurred in Hertfordshire, than as a History of same. The text lacks coherence, with frequent isolated "factlets". Two egs from 14century: " Edmund of Langley, the first Duke of York and founder of the House of York, was born in Kings Langley on 5 June 1341 and died there on 1 August 1402." and "Richard of Wallingford, the mathematician and astronomer, became Abbott of St Albans in 1326. He is regarded as the father of modern trigonometry." I'm not suggesting running through and deleting these things indiscriminately, but either giving them a meaningful context - why does it matter that he was born in Hertfordshire? - or integrating them into existing text and themes more carefully. Not easy in some cases, i accept.
  • Sometimes facts do just need to be deleted. Example: "The original guardian of the Norman motte and bailey castle in Hertford was named Peter de Valognes." Just delete. Who cares, unless we are about to be told interesting things about this person as a notable Hertfordian (which we are not).
  • Some paras are truly bad. The first para under "Eleventh century" mentions that a massacre "was thought to have started in" Hertfordshire (truly a tenuous link) - and then the county isn't mentioned again until the last sentence, where it tells us that something has already been mentioned about Hertfordshire.
  • Another example of this lack of focus is the intro sentence to late Middle Ages, which has nothing at all to do with H.
  • Prose issues throughout. Some egs:
  • "She had already burned Londinium (later London), among other places, and would shortly afterwards be killed at the Battle of Watling Street." Unrelated facts in one sentence, as well as extraneous to the history of Herfordshire.
  • "Anglo-Saxon Hertford is an example of town planning as demonstrated by its organised rectangular grid street pattern." Unrelated to the content of the preceding sentences.
  • "St Albans was an especially parliamentary stronghold" - surely an especially strong parliamentary stronghold?
I added "staunch" here, to avoid repetition. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some unreferenced facts, eg "It was at this Synod that the "question of Easter" was settled, with which the church decided how the date of Easter ought to be calculated"
  • "Hitchin likely stayed in royal hands into the tenth century." So many issues - bitty prose, and unrelated to the preceding lines; the following sentences in the para are even worse in this regard.
  • Query re one particular point. One para under "origins of the county" begins "Hertfordshire clearly did not exist in the late ninth century." It then explains that the geographical region was split in two following a war. I'm not sure we should use the word "clearly", unless the sources are explicitly ruling out the possibility that something called Hertford (and different in extent to the present H.) could have existed.
  • Try and avoid organising the account in ways that end up requiring sentences like "During these campaigns he built the two burhs of Hertford as already noted." (emphasis added). It tends to indicate that the chronology of the account has become confused.
  • Lots of muddled chronology. Eg "In 1130, the earliest Pipe Roll shows..." at the end of a para that begins in 1143.

Needs a broad-scale overhaul, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of those issues are fixable, but some are simply too vague to respond to. Yes, the article's essentially a chronology:- a list of things that happened in, or are related to, Hertfordshire, rendered in prose. And that's what it ought to be. There should be no speculation, no "angle", no point of view, and no amateur analysis bolted onto the facts. Not least because this article needs to cover well over a thousand years in summary style, and it's already seven thousand words and 68kb long, and reviewers are already concerned about length.

    Hamiltonstone's critique complains when I introduce simple facts and leave it there, but also complains when I give context that isn't specifically about Hertfordshire.

    I do agree that paragraphs are unfocused. If I had my way, this article would contain one topic per paragraph and one paragraph per topic. There is a feeling among other editors that this makes my paragraphs "too short", a point which I feel is ridiculous but on Wikipedia one submits to the consensus. Thus others, and I, have gone through it stitching totally unrelated subjects together into the same paragraph.

    Yes, the sources explicitly rule out the possibility that Hertfordshire as an administrative or governmental unit could have existed. Partly in Essex, partly in Mercia, with a dividing line along Watling Street and the River Lea. There's no evidence that the word was used as a geographical term, and while we can't explicitly rule that out, it's highly unlikely. Hertfordshire's geographically disparate and there's no feature or aspect that unites it.

    Generally, my response to Hamiltonstone is, give me specific criticisms and I'll address them.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object mostly per Hamiltonstone's comments about the content. Things such as a royal lady or famous novelist who happened to be born there fill the article, when it is supposed to be the big picture development and trends of the area eg, increase/decreases in settlement, wars, farming and industry, legal reform, recessions etc. Instead there is a paragraph about the Prime Minister having his seat there, but nothing about what he did for the region. Also, has there not been any immigration into the area? Becuase it is not mentioned. In short, the content doesn't match the topic YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose does not appear comprehensive, and I believe the prose is substandard, jumping around as it does. We have an episode from the 10th century, then jumps a century, as if a factlet a century is the way to go. Didn't Domesday Book say anything more about Hertfordshire than 168 settlements, which gives no idea of its 11th century state to anyone? I am very much afraid that this seems a collection of anecdotes and episodes, with no common thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I have to agree with the last three opposes. There is a balance to be struck between events and trends, and what happened to the whole country or area and what happened to Herts in particular, but this clearly hasn't got it right yet. No mention of the M1 and M25 motorways, surely crucial to the contemporary economy of the county. How much of the working population commutes to London? I have seen the discussion on the talk page, but frankly find it difficult to believe that no sources exist for a less episodic treatment. A small example - which is more important to the subject here? Your text:"King Offa of Mercia (died 796) gave his name to the village of Offley in Hertfordshire.[22] Some sources suggest he died there,[22] though he was buried in Bedford.[23]" or my addition: "He founded St Albans Abbey in 793"? Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to those who made an effort to improve the article.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 13:44, 24 May 2010 [20].

Mary of Modena[edit]

Nominator(s): Jack1755 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. By the way, I apologise to any reviewers who I may have upset in the past, especially in regards to Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici. -- Jack1755 (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 00:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support it as a FA. It's well-written in simple, good prose; it contains the right amount of information for anyone doing research on her; there are plenty of images; and the sources are reliable ones. Nice work!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Yes, I agree that the article is comprehensive and has lots of fine images, but the prose is a struggle to get through and quite, well, overblown in places. Stylistically, I don't believe it's entirely encyclopedic, which certainly needs to be fixed. Some examples from the top:
  • A staunch Catholic, Mary was married, in 1673, to James, Duke of York, (the future James II) the younger brother and heir of England's incumbent King, Charles II. -- There's actually not much wrong with this sentence other than the numerous commas. It reads like William Shatner speaks, if that makes any sense. ;)
  • Uninterested in politics, she was devoted to James, and bore him two children who survived to adulthood: Louise Mary and the Jacobite claimant to the English, Scottish and Irish thrones, James Francis Edward Stuart, known to history as "The Old Pretender". -- This has several issues. Is it really worth noting that she was "uninterested in politics"? and "devoted to James"? Rather, I would expect the lead to note if she was interested in politics and not devoted to James, since these factors clearly go against the norms of the time. "known to history" also sounds peacocky.
  • I don't know if it's worth noting or not, but Carola Oman, the author of Mary of Modena, certainly does. The article doesn't contain any orignal ideas. Please elaborate on how her devtion and dislike of politics was the 'norm' at the time, giving examples. Thanks. -- Jack1755 (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was unclear, but I didn't mean to imply that the article contains OR; rather, it's the way some of the material is presented that I find issue with. I, certainly not an expert in the field, would automatically assume that a Queen regent would stick by her man and not dabble in politics, instead doing her duty to the crown by popping out princes at every opportune time. I of course won't argue facts, but that's my understanding. To throw into the lead that Mary was devoted, etc., seems unnecessary because it implies that the "norm" was otherwise -- political wives who hated their husbands. That's what it implies to me. This one point, however, is admittedly not as important as some of the other concerns I've come across, so feel free to disagree. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of the English public believed he was a changeling, brought into the birth-chamber in a warming-pan, in order to perpetuate King James II's Catholic dynasty. Although this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent privy council investigation only re-affirmed this... -- "brought into the chamber", etc., seems superfluous as it detracts from the rest of the sentence. Also, from what I gather, it wasn't the birth that was controversial, but its supposedly false circumstances, yes? The previous sentence may therefore need to be clarified. "this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent..." etc., is very awkward as it needlessly places blame; rather, the accusation was found to be false by a privy council investigation. State the facts, nice and simple.
Well, aren't parenthetical elements, like 'brought into the chamber', superfluous by definition? I mean, of course it detracts from the core-meaning of the sentence--it doesn't need to be there. It was the birth of a Catholic heir that agitated the Protesants. The birth itself had myriad witnesses, but most Protestants chose to ignore this fact and to concoct stories about the 'Pope's daughter'. Keep in mind that the English population at the time was notoriously anti-Catholic. Again, thanks for the constructive criticism, Maria! :D -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mary was popular among Louis XIV's courtiers; James was considered a bore, however. -- Is this important? If it is, the phrasing gives undue weight to James' poor reputation. Make Mary the subject of the sentence: "As opposed to James...", perhaps?
  • Mary's education was excellent; -- Rather than tell us it was excellent, show it.
I'm confused. Mary is the subject of the first independent clause; James, the second. The sentence has two subjects. Yes, it is important because their life in France, between plotting to dethrone William and Mary, was spent at Louis XIV's court. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did: 'Mary's education was excellent;[7] she spoke French and Italian fluently, had a good knowledge of Latin and, later, mastered English.' Emphasis on the semi-colon. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because Modena was firmly within his sphere of influence, Louis XIV of France zealously endorsed Mary's candidature -- "firmly within his sphere of influence"? "zealously"?
I got the phrase 'firmly within his spere of influence' fron Asia Times Online. Would fervently be better? I don't really get your point here, Maria, but I do appreciate your constructive criticism. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above examples (and I'm sure there are more), I don't believe this article's prose currently exemplifies what is described in the FA criteria. It's judgmental and needlessly flowery, rather than professional and engaging. I was curious as to the nominator's note above re: the de' Medici article, so I glanced at the previous FACs, and it seems that the prose there was also an issue for several reviewers. I suggest asking a copy-editor with FA experience to weed out/reword any potential issues with wording and word-choice. Yes, some of it may come down to personal preference, but I know FA-standard when I read it, and this article just isn't there yet. Best of luck, María (habla conmigo) 12:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria, I beg to differ with you, but how is known to history peacocky? Also, it's certainly important to note that she was uninterested in politics, considering she was married to the King of England and many queen consorts did have a habit of meddling in state affairs (Margaret of Anjou, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France, Eleanor of Provence, Henrietta Maria, Anne Boleyn, to name but a few! Finally, what does William Shatner have to do with this article and how would a person speak with commas? By the way, the commas are being used appropriately so as to avoid having choppy sentences. Honestly, I am disappointed with your assessment of this FAC.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jeanne boyleyn, thank you for your comments. As I stated above, the "uninterested in politics", etc., may simply be my own misgivings, so feel free to disagree. I still believe it reads strangely, but oh well. As for William Shatner, that was a joke -- see the winking smiley? :) Have you heard Shatner speak? He! Speaks! Like! This! Very amusing, I assure you, but my point was five commas -- five! -- may be grammatically correct, but the sentence is incredibly difficult to navigate. It needs rewording so that so many commas are not necessary. Easily enough to do. I haven't read the article in full, but I believe a copy-edit by someone familiar with the FA criteria may help. Hope this clarifies things, María (habla conmigo) 15:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just broke up the sentence with the commas into two separate ones.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I agree with María (though in fact not with all her examples). I remember the same issues last time with Anna Maria Luisa de' Medici.
  • The admittedly complicated "cast-list" produce some especially mind-scrambling passages. Linking is not great - I added House of d'Este, but we have an article on Guy-Crescent Fagon, and why on earth is Queen Anne introduced as "Lady Anne (the future Princess of Denmark)"?! There are numerous extra complications introduced. Anne Hyde should be linked when first mentioned.
The parenthesis after Queen Anne was the work of the GA reviwer. Huh? Anne Hyde is linked when first mentioned. See "The Popish plot and exile" section. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. I removed it anyway. Now, the link is in 'Duchess of York': '...to the commoner Anne Hyde' -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Parliament and the English public—who were predominately Anglican..." needs rewriting. Parliament were by law 100% Anglican; the people are a more complicated matter, though "predominantly Protestant" would be uncontroversial. DONE
  • The prose is just not free-flowing. Quick example: "Her English reception was much cooler." (whole sentence). No - "Her reception in England was much cooler." Sentences try to squeeze too much in:"In February 1787, the Queen, at the time irritated by the King's affair with Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, moved into new Christopher Wren-designed £13,000 apartments in Whitehall, which had been home to a Catholic chapel since December 1686" - what, the palace or the apartments? "designed by CW at a cost of £13K". This should be at least two sentences - three might be better. EXAMPLES DONE
  • "the Yorks were begrudgingly exiled to Brussels, a domain of the King of Spain, ostensibly to visit Lady Mary—since 1677 Princess of Orange as the wife of Prince William III." - It needs explaining that William & Mary were in Holland not Brussels. "since 1677 the wife of Prince William III of Orange" would be clearer & more familiar.
  • The sources used, especially those used most heavily, are rather old & more popular than scholarly.
Could you name the sources which are old and more popular than scholarly, please? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See below. -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Duke of York, an avowed Catholic..." it needs explaining that James had only recently converted from Anglicanism, apparently in the previous year in secret, though it was soon an open one. Also that Anne Hyde had died in 1671. DONE
  • More later. But this needs someone to go through & work on the prose throughout. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of working over the prose to route out long sentences. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of pruning. What do you think? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following two sources collectively account for 57% of all Mary of Modena's citations:
'Scholarly' Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, published 1905, is cited as a source in numerous modern works: A Court in Exile: The Stuarts in France, 1689 - 1718, Cambridge University Press (2004), The English Historical Review (Vol. 108: 1993), among others. Additionally, a list of works that cite ISBN-enabled copies of Mary of Modena can viewed on google books: [21];
Published in 1962, Mary of Modena by Oxford-educated Carola Oman, Lady Lenanton, CBE, is recommended by Encyclopaedia Britannica. The 1974 edition (ISBN-enabled) is cited by the following: [22]. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'd really appreciate it if someone replied this time. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...-- Jack1755 (talk) 22:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comment: In terms of reliability, the sources chosen look OK. All links check out. Brianboulton (talk) 10:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - I've been asked to have a look at this article by its author as I have provided copyediting advice on several of his other articles. I think on the whole that this is a very fine article, and I don't think that the sometimes florid prose is a problem (although it occassionally can obscure meaning). I have left a list of problems that I saw below.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now satisified that this article meets all of the criteria.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mary was popular among Louis XIV's courtiers; James was considered a bore, however." - This sentance is over complex, perhaps "however, James was" as an alternative.
  • "born on 5 October 1658 NS" - Even with the link, just putting "NS" is not massively helpful. I suggest giving the date as they saw it and then a comment in brackets (i.e. "born on 25 September 1658 (5 October 1658 in the New Style)". In fact, I think that a footnote explaining why the article veers between NS and OS dates would be very helpful.
  • "the year Mary turned 4" - it is usual to give figures below 10 (or for some 12) in letters rather than numbers.
  • "by Lord Peterborough." - explain briefly who Peterborough was so that we can see why he was in a position to chose a wife for the prince.
  • "He gave her an £8,000 brooch" - In the money of the time? Can you use the conversion template to establish how much that would be worth today?
  • "the Duchess of York was saddened by James's extra-marital affairs" - in brussels or in general? Can you expand on this point?
  • "Princess Anne of Denmark" - it isn't immediately clear that this is the Anne that was mentioned earlier since you haven't mentioned that she moved to Denmark or married a Dane.
  • Double check spelling and grammar as they can sometimes be a bit off - I had to make a few corrections myself.
Thanks so, so much, Jackyd101. I really appreciate it! I implemented all of your recommendations. -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From your respective silences, Maria and Johnbod, I infer that you both feel I have addressed your concerns! -- Jack1755 (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Jack has done everything required of him to bring the article up to FA standards, so let's get the show on the road and have some feedback.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an appropriate inference, unfortunately. If you haven't already, feel free to ping Maria and Johnbod on their talk pages to see if they can revisit the article. Karanacs (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Karanacs -- I was pinged earlier today to revisit this nom. I'm afraid I don't have the time to read the article in its entirety at the moment, and so I can neither support nor oppose this nomination. I'm glad to know an effort has been made to tone down the prose, however. That was my main concern. María (habla conmigo) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Karanacs. I was trying to provoke a reply--at this rate from anyone. Thanks, Maria. All the best. -- Jack1755 (talk) 19:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. There were some problems with the prose but they have all been resolved. All facts are there and sources are cited for each. The topic of the article is sensitive due to different Catholic/Protestant points of view yet the article itself is completely neutral. I think this article now meets the FA criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe that the unencylcopaedic, or overblown, tone of Mary of Modena has been rectified as per the above comments. -- Vivara (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Karanacs. The prose needs serious work to reach FA quality and I feel like the article does not really give a good idea of who Mary was.

  • The prose is not FA quality and need work. Analyzing the lead alone:
    • A devout Catholic, Mary became, in 1673, the second wife of James, Duke of York, the younger brother and heir of Charles II, who later succeeded him as King James II. - There is a pronoun/clause-agreement issue here. I read the last clause as modifying "Charles II", when that's not what is intended.
    • The third sentence of the lead has two different modifiers for her son James in an area offset by a colon. These types of long and slightly unwieldy sentences make it more difficult for the reader to follow what the article is trying to convey.
    • Born a princess of the Italian Duchy of Modena, Mary is primarily remembered for the controversial birth of James Francis Edward, her only surviving son - This sentence has repetition - we were told in the previous sentence that she had only one surviving son and a bit about controversy surrounding him. The two pieces of the sentence are also unrelated.
    • Next sentence - do "birth chamber" and "warming pan" really need hypens?
    • Although this accusation was completely false, and the subsequent privy council investigation only reaffirmed this-- two problems with this: first, we are proclaiming a fact without really telling why, and second, this is overly wordy and circular. You could fix both problems with something like "Witnesses and a privy council investigation affirmed that James was Mary's son"
    • Exiled to France, the "Queen over the water"—as Jacobites (followers of James II) called Mary—lived with her husband and children in the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, provided by Louis XIV of France. -- Is the name "the Queen over the water" really important enough for the lead? If so, please reword, because that clause that is set off breaks the flow of the sentence. Also, this is the second time that Jacobite is used in the lead but the first time it is explained. Do we need to know which chateau she lived in?
    • A few seconds later, we mention her widowhood but we don't mention when she was widowed until the sentence after that.
    • These same prose problems are visible throughout the article. There is significant repetition (ex: 1st para early life wwe're given years and her age when it should be fairly obvious).
  • Is it important that Lord Peterborough was groom of the stole? What is a groom of the stole? If the role has no bearing on his being asked to look for a wife for James, then it doesn't need to be mentioned (just say he's a courtier), otherwise, we might need to know what that is.
  • We're told what Laura was waiting for why, so why the followup "Whatever the reason for Laura's initial reluctance"? This is also repetition - previous sentence said "not initially forthcoming", this sentence uses "finally". We're being beaten over the head with the concept.
  • We're told that the English public was angry that she was Catholic since they were Protestant, but we aren't told why a Catholic was sought out until the next section. It might be important to mention earlier that James was Catholic to put things in context.
  • How could James be an avowed Catholic who had converted secretly? Was it public knowledge that he was Catholic or not? Why are we told when he converted after we're told he is Catholic (and again, why after we're told the people were mad that Mary was Catholic)?
  • What was the age difference between Mary and her stepdaughters?
  • Why did James choose Mary? Surely there were other pretty Catholic noblewomen - what made her special?
  • What caused Mary to warm to her new husband?
  • I don't understand the gambling part. Is this really important? Did her noblewomen think Mary would become ill, that people would look down on her for not gambling, or that people would be afraid she'd look down on them because they gambled?
  • Who is Queen Catherine? Charles's wife?
  • King shouldn't be capitalized when it isn't directly in front of someone's name.
  • I don't think we should be using noble titles after the person's first introduction (so no need for multiple "Lady Isabella" and "Lady Anne"). See other FAs of royalty/nobility.
  • What does this mean - "Precedents were sought for Mary"
  • why do we refer to Mary over and over as "the Queen"? Why not just "Mary"?
  • One of the monetary terms is converted also to current value but the rest are not. Please be consistent.
  • Image captions should not have periods unless they are full sentences
  • Did she move to Whitehall because it had a Catholic chapel? If so, say so; if not, why is that important? And honestly, "since December 1686" implies there has been a length time lapse, not just 2 or 3 months.
  • Did the king go with her to Whitehall? The first sentence makes it seem like she moved out in a huff; the third sentence makes it sound like the king went too.
  • what were Anne's findings?
  • overlinking - it is not necessary to keep linking to William III, Mary II, etc. and Protestantism is linked in the Regency section, long after we had been introduced to the concept.
  • We aren't supposed to use collapsed tables as article content, and you have two sections that are comprised solely of collapsed tables.
  • Why does the article use the Encylopedia Britannica as a source? Surely there are other sources that could be used!
  • What makes this a reliable source: http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/? This appears to be a genealogy database set up by a computer scientist.
  • Overall, I feel like we don't get a very good picture of Mary. I think more detail could be added about, for instance, the pressure she was likely under to produce an heir, and the circumstances that led to 200 people being present in her bedchamber when her son was born.

Karanacs (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC) In light of that, I'm going to withdraw, not that agree with all of your points, Karanacs. -- Jack1755 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"brought into the birth-chamber in a warming-pan, in order to perpetuate King James II's Catholic dynasty"—remove to words and a comma? Sorry, I see your note about withdrawing now. Tony (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:16, 21 May 2010 [23].

Benet Academy[edit]

Nominator(s): Benny the mascot (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benet Academy — a small, vibrant Catholic school located amidst the tranquility of the Chicago suburbia. Featured as one of the nation's most outstanding high schools, later rocked by scandal in a statewide university admissions policy, and just recently lauded for it's boys' basketball team's impeccable performance, Benet Academy adds a unique piece to Wikipedia's diverse collection of information, which to this day has no FAs on private high schools. This article has gone through extensive copyediting following a successful GAN review by Nasty Housecat and peer reviews by Finetooth and Ruhrfisch (thanks to all of you!). Thanks in advance for your comments. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 23:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking, and for fixing the dashes in the article, too! Benny the mascot (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Comment. I did the GA review on this article a while back and I am impressed at how much it has improved with the benefit of a lot of work and a very good peer review. A few minor comments:

  • US grade levels are not familiar to non-US readers. You should add age equivalents, as well.
    Age equivalences added. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Is it possible for Rev. John to gaze into the page?

  • That picture is already a flipped version of the original. The picture will have either Jaeger's eyes or knees pointing into the page, so which do you prefer? Benny the mascot (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* “…continues to house the administrative offices”. As of 2010?

* “DuPage County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom endorsed a plan....” This seem unclear to me. Why did they approve such a plan? Did they use it in the end?

  • Hopefully I've clarified the statement. The reasoning behind the plan is unclear, though. Perhaps it was more of a "let's help our schools in any way we can" kind of plan. Benny the mascot (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* You sometimes use “percent” and sometime use “%”. Choose a favorite?

* “…9.69 percent of students are Asian or Pacific Islander, .625 percent are Hispanic, .859 percent are African American,…” This seems like too much precision. Maybe “less than 10 percent” and "less than one percent” respectively?

* “All 327 students in Benet's graduating class of 2009 took the ACT as juniors …” The ACT might bear brief explanation for non-US readers. Also, why did they all take it? I believe it is required, is it not? Isn’t that unusual?

  • I clarified what the ACT is. Also, taking it is a state requirement for public school students only. [24] All Benet students end up taking it simply because they all plan to go to college. Benny the mascot (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* “…second only to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy.” That is actually quite impressive if you know what IMSA is. Most people do not. You might want to explain a bit.

* “In an article related to the University of Illinois clout scandal…” This is not something people generally will know about. It could use some explaining, as well.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Benny the mascot (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ruhrfisch comments I peer reviewed this and, as requested, here are my FAC comments. These are all pretty minor and I expect to support once these issues have been addressed.

  • I think it would help to mention United States somehow in the lead - perhaps as U.S. state *US is not usually linked).
    US state not linked to, but I did add "United States" after "Illinois". [25] Benny the mascot (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is awkward The orphanage moved in 1898 to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago,[6] where St. Procopius also moved to in 1901. perhaps The orphanage moved in 1898 to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago,[6] in 1901 St. Procopius also moved there.
    Done with minor tweaks Benny the mascot (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally there are no refs in the lead except for direct quotations or extraordinary claims. The lead here has only one reference and it is neither of these things. I think that the distance from Chicago is only in the lead, so it should be repeated in the article somewhere and the ref moved there.
    Ref moved over Benny the mascot (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead I think I would link Benedictine University to "the college" in this sentence The orphanage closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which then separated from the college in 1957.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence in the lead Benet's average ACT test score has exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students have gone on to college after graduation. This makes it sound like this has been the case in the past, but is no longer so. Since this ref and others make it clear this is current as of the 2009 school year, how about something like Benet's average ACT test score regularly exceed statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students typically go on to college after graduation. Or you could make it As of 2009, Benet's average ACT test score exceeded statewide and national averages, and more than 99 percent of students went on to college after graduation.
    Done. I chose the latter. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about The athletic program fields 23 teams, several of which have competed in their state tournaments. instead of The athletic program fields 23 teams, several of which have placed in their respective state tournaments. I am not sure "placed" is clear here - does it mean more than just competed in the tournament?
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wrote this as I read through the article - if "placed" here meant that they were not only in the tournament, but did well (fourth place or better) then I owuld be OK using it with some clarification. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified Benny the mascot (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a team a person (can you use who)? Students may join around 30 clubs or organizations, including the Math Team or Scince Olympiad team, who both have won awards in their respective state tournaments. How about Students may join around 30 clubs or organizations, including the Math Team or Scince Olympiad team, which both have won awards in their state tournaments.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward It was named after Saint Procopius of Sázava, who during the eleventh century had founded a monastery in Bohemia and who became the first canonized saint of Czechoslovakia.[10] how about something like It was named after Saint Procopius of Sázava, who had founded a monastery in Bohemia during the eleventh century and later became the first saint from the former Czechoslovakia.[10] (Are there saints who are not canonized? Also since Czechoslavakia no longer exists, I made it "the former Czechoslavakia")
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:LASTNAME, drop "Rev." in Rev. Jaeger, the first Bohemian abbot in the United States, was urged to found a Bohemian monastic community ... and make sure the rest of the article follows this, for example Rev. Neuzil was later replaced as rector by Rev. Ildephonse Wittman... (the second Rev. is OK as it introducing him, as is the use of Reverend in the caption). Also need to fix the second and third mentions of Rev. Bauer later
    Hopefully removed all repeat occurrences of "Rev". In the sentence "Abbot Jaeger was present at the groundbreaking...", I think I should keep "Abbot" in front of "Jaeger" to avoid confusion with his sister. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with keeping Abbot - as you note it avoids confusion with his sister. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any reason not to move some refs to the end of a phrase or sentence so that they come after punctuation. For example, in School operations were moved in May of that year,[18][19] and classes began in September[18] with a six-member faculty hired to teach 11 students.[9] why couldn't ref 18 just be at the end of the sentence instead?
    I cleaned up the refs. Do you think I should move all of the other mid-sentence refs as well? Benny the mascot (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While that is my preference, it is not an actionable request at FAC (you can do it if you want, but do not need to for my sake). I know it would be a lot of work, but do think in most cases things read better with refs after punctuation. Thanks for your work so far, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take a look at the relevant guidelines before I begin such an exhausting edit, then. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move this sentence Neither this nor World War I greatly affected daily life at St. Procopius; there were no food shortages throughout the entire period.[20] after the next several sentences about the school farm and change it to something like Neither the Great Depression nor World War I greatly affected daily life at St. Procopius; the farm's output helped ensure that there were no food shortages.[20]
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is unclear World War II caused college enrollment to fall once again, leaving mostly high school students and seminarians behind. I think it means that the student body during WWII was mostly high school students and seminarians.
    Hopefully clarified Benny the mascot (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Laity to lay in ...the percentage of day or commuting students rose, and the school employed more lay teachers?
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A very confused sentence: Enrollment at St. Procopius grew even more during the 1950s and 1960s, a time when rising affluence and birth rates prompted youth to seek the educational opportunities provided for them by the G.I. Bill.[12] First off, the birth rates rising increased the pool of students, but rising birth rates in and of themselves did not prompt more students to see education. Second, since this is an article on a high school, the GI Bill would not have covered the costs (though it would have covered college tuition and the college was still associated with the high school). I suggest something like Rising affluence and birth rates meant that enrollment at St. Procopius grew even more during the 1950s and 1960s.[12] The ref is from the university and the rest of the sentence applies to that article, not this one.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another place where the refs could be simplified The orphanage ultimately closed in 1956 to make room for St. Procopius Academy, which separated from the college[8] and began its own operations in 1957.[9][8] First off, refs are generally in numeric order (so [8][9]), second and more importantly, why do there need to be two uses of ref 8 in one sentence? Why not just one use at the end of the sentence?
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was St. Mary's Hall? New parking areas were planned, and St. Mary's Hall was to be demolished.[34]
    The Benet alumni have put together a page with info on such things. However, since it's almost like a wiki, it might not be considered a reliable source. What are your thoughts on the web site? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it seems a less than perfect source in terms of reliability. More importantly, the only mention of St. Mary's Hall I found on the web site did not say what it was. If no more information exists, that is OK, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find any info from reliable sources. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop "after all" - seems to be POV. I would also drop adjacent as it does not seem necessary: Benet responded by saying their plans complied with village building codes and that "the school was there prior to the homes being constructed;"[35] after all, both the Oak Hill South and the adjacent, larger Oak Hill subdivisions lie on what used to be Benedictine land.[36]
    [26] Benny the mascot (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can a campus have a top floor? Also crammed seems a bit POV, perhaps "...groups used small, crowded rehearsal rooms": The need for more space became obvious as the school's music groups were crammed into small and crowded rehearsal rooms on the campus's top floor.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward Its placement on campus is symbolic of the well-rounded education that is complemented by the performing arts program; as the school president stated, "The theater is at the extreme east of the school, the gymnasium is at the extreme west. In between is where the academic part is."[37] Howw about As the school's president noted, the performing arts center's placement on campus is symbolic of a well-rounded education: "The theater is at the extreme east of the school, the gymnasium is at the extreme west. In between is where the academic part is."[37]
    I struck this as I saw you'd fixed it, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem caption St. Daniel Hall features an outdoor theater surrounded by an indoor auditorium. - it is clearly not "surrounded by" the other auditorium - how about "adjacent to"?
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink St Therese to Thérèse of Lisieux
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admissions section - should the year be added to the first paragraph? "As of 2010, admission is competetive..." Also is there any allowance made for legacy students (the children or grandchildren of alums)?
    Done. And I couldn't find any sources that suggest that legacy students are given special preference. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking on the legacies. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Academics section needs more dates - the Tribune article is from 2003 and this should be noted. The USN&WR article should also be dated - any reason not to have the ref to the USN&WR article and not local newspapers reporting on it? Similarly, anything that is current practice (like the last two paragraphs in this section) should be identified by year (As of the 2009–2010 school year, ...)
    Mostly done. I don't have access to the USN&WR article, unfortunately. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem sentence: Students in the class of 2013 previously hailed [came] from 65 different grade schools and junior high schools and live in 34 municipalities located in the counties of DuPage, Cook, Kane, Will, and Kendall counties,[57] although most students come from the cities of Lisle, Downers Grove, and Naperville.[52] Lisle and Downers Grove are villages not cities ;-)
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MOS says no superscripts on things like in the 92nd percentile on that exam so just in the 92nd percentile
    Fixed by Cunard. Benny the mascot (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May be clearer to say In the 1920s Rev. Bauer served as Athletic Director while [also] coaching basketball, baseball, and football at the same time.[71]
  • Done Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records are set, not won Benet's boys basketball team has won various state records, including a 102-home game winning streak ...*:Done Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Appalachian service trip to coastal Norfolk, Virginia??
    Contradiction removed. Perhaps the info was outdated??? Benny the mascot (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said this in the Peer Review too, I think Benedictine University should be mentioned in the body of the article, not just a note.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps, overall good job, just lots of nit picks. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck all of my comments, but would like to see the issues raised by Karanacs addressed before I support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am also concerned about http://www.illinoishsglorydays.com/id651.html - what makes this reliable source? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only issue keeping me from supporting is my question on the reliability of www.illinoishsglorydays.com as a source, above. Not sure if you missed it, so thought I'd point it out. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been completely aware of that issue; real life has just kept me away for a while. Apologies for the delay — the source in question, along with its Sacred Heart counterpart, has been removed. Let me know if you have any other comments. In the meantime I'll continue to work on the problems Karanacs has pointed out. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck everything and switched to support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Your suggestions have definitely been helpful. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support, with some minor comments.

  • For consistency with the rest of the entries in the Alumni section, would you include the year Molly Schaus attended Benet?
    Schaus attended Benet Academy during the 2002–2003 school year, according to this source (December 19, 2002) and this one (March 30, 2003). Perhaps "...during her freshman year in 2003" could be changed to "when she was a freshman during the 2002–2003 school year"? Cunard (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #111 (link) is a dead link. Would you update this link if it can be found somewhere else on the web, or remove it if it cannot. To prevent the other links in the article from becoming dead links, I suggest archiving them through WebCite. The WebCite link can be added to the reference template through the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= parameters. For an example of an article that uses archived links, see World Chocolate Wonderland.
    I've replaced that source with a new one. I'll start archiving the references eventually. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WebCite is down right now, so the references cannot be archived yet. I believe WebCite is generally considered a reliable website, though, since there is a bot, WebCiteBOT (talk · contribs), that adds archived urls from it. Cunard (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article inconsistently uses or omits commas. For example, "In 1926 Benedictine nuns constructed ..." omits a comma after "In 2006", while "In 1899, the monks opened St. Joseph Bohemian Orphanage ..." includes a comma after "In 1899". Please standardize the article to use only one style.
    Done. Hope I didn't miss anything! Benny the mascot (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I skimmed the article and have not found any inconsistencies. Cunard (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I made some copyedits to the article; if any of my edits introduced errors or inconsistencies to the article, feel free to revert.

Excellent article. This was a very informative and enjoyable read. Good luck, Cunard (talk) 04:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help! Benny the mascot (talk) 05:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose for now by Karanacs. Overall, I'm concerned at the balance of coverage and I have questions about the level of sourcing. details below:

  • "Neither the Great Depression nor World war I greatly affected daily life" - is this really meant to be WWI? If so, please put these in chronological order; otherwise please change to WWII.
    Reordered Benny the mascot (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two paragraphs in a row talk about the lack of effect the Great Depression had, This seems repetitive - can you take another look at the organization of those two paragraphs, plase?
    Reorganized Benny the mascot (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The organization is still not good. When you map out the topics you get this: Falling enrollment due to Great Depression - Accred. denied due to funds/enrollment - funds gone - daily life unchanged - accred. approved. Then, in the following paragraph, info about how they were sustained in Great D. - daily life not affected (and a jump back to 1917). This needs to be rethought. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I see your point. What was wrong with the original organization? I think that version kept things more in chronological order. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any information about why there were so many out-of-state students, or why the ratio of out-of-state to in-state changed in the 1940s?
    I couldn't find any. Benny the mascot (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems redundant - " the high school enrolled an average of 30 students (not including college students)." - the high school wouldn't enroll college statudents, would it? They'd be enrolled in the college?
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Progress section might need to be segmented. It follows a chronological line to the 1960s, then switches back to 1910 to talk about the orphanage and follow another chronological line. Once we get back to the 1960s, we then go all the way back again to 1926 to discuss the girls school. To me, this implies three separate sections, one for each chronology.
    Done Benny the mascot (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, but the topic still changes in the "Merger and Beyond" section. Keep the focus on the boy's school at first, then bring in information about the girl's school. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how the current version is laid out, though. The Move to Lisle section discusses the boys' school, then two sections later the girls' school is mentioned. After that the coed school is discussed. And I really think that a stand-alone section would be inappropriate for the all-girls school. The paragraph is too small and still mentions in part the all-boys school. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think some of the After the merger information is much, much too detailed. As an example, we don't really need an entire paragraph on parking! This is trivial, when it could be summarized by simply saying that "Residents and the school have argued over the school's parking policies since 2001." (and that's if we even need to include this at all, my thought is no). There are other, similar issues with this section.
    Excess detail removed. Anything else? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better, but do we care about details like "zoned lighting", where drama students used to practice, etc? This needs to be read over again very closely. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we have any information on when admission requirements changed to competitive admission instead of only those of a certain ethnic background?
    I've added the following to the end of the "Academics" section: "Benet's faculty has credited the school's academic success to Rev. Ronald Rigovsky, who served as principal for 23 years and as president from 1987 to 1992. During his tenure, Rigovsky developed the school into "one of the highest scoring and most scholastically respected high schools in the Chicago area," according to the Chicago Tribune." Is that sufficient? Benny the mascot (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to have that much detail on the Christmas Drive?
    Excess detail removed Benny the mascot (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Watch for repetitive prose "Every student organization is encouraged to raise money for this activity, which is jointly coordinated by three student organizations" (two instances of student organization in one sentence). Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of your citations have publishers listed
    I've added publishers to the sources, among other things. Did I miss anything? Benny the mascot (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Citations aren't consistently formatted. Look in particular at the different ways that Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune references are done and standardize on one. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, no publisher here Boykin, Ames (April 28, 2008). "Suburban students shine at Illinois Science Olympiad". http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=180826. Retrieved March 26, 201

or here Broz, Joan (March 4, 2010). "Sondheim classic at Benet Academy". http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=362972. Retrieved March 26, 2010. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm concerned that almost the entire history section is from primary sources. Are there no books about the history of Chicago, the history of Lisle, the history of the Benedictines in the US/IL, etc which contain information about this school? No newspaper articles about the time of the merger that give a brief overview of the history?
    I've used secondary sources before, but decided to remove those citations because they were superseded by more detailed primary sources. In addition, there really aren't that many secondary sources covering Benet's history. Benny the mascot (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some new secondary sources. Am I going in the right direction? Is there anything else I need to do? Benny the mascot (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the effort and this is an incremental improvement, but I'm concerned that so much of this is still sourced to either self-published websites (the university, the school itself, the parish) or to official Catholic Church books. In particular, I worry that statistics and motivations are being sourced solely to self-published websites (as an example, see 2nd paragraph of Chicago section). Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been using mostly Google Books for these sources. Is there another resource you recommend so that I can find more acceptable references? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Books is a good starting place, but not the be-all and end-all of research. I hope that if you are using Google books you make sure that you are able to read the full chapter of the affected entries - otherwise you may miss important context and possibly misinterpret information. If you live in the area, go to the library and see if the reference librarian can help. Contact the school to see if they know of any independent resources to talk about the school. Search the archives of the local newspapers (not just the last few years). If you haven't done these things yet, then I think you need to shelve this nomination so that you can spend make sure you've done the essential research. Karanacs (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes schooltree.org a reliable source?
    Statement it sources removed Benny the mascot (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current citation 61 needs to have the full name of the magazine (U.S. News and World Report). Magazine names need to be in italics
    Full name added and italicized Benny the mascot (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is citation 66? (Patricia PEterson). There is no publisher
    Added Benny the mascot (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this the high school newspaper? If so, is there any administration oversight as to the content? If not, then I don't think that is a very good source at all. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Benet Connections is the school newsletter. It's contents are written by students, alumni, and staff and are edited by the Development Office, which consists of paid employees of the school. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry it took me so long to return. I've stricken some comments and left follow-ups on others. Karanacs (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a few comments just in the lede.
    • "and more than 99 percent of students went on to college after graduation." - do you have an exact percentage? Saying "99.5% of students" would be better than "more than 99". Also, it should be % and not "percent", IMO.
      I don't know the exact percentage, so "more than 99" is as accurate as we can get. Also, WP:MOS#Percentages discourages the use of % in non-scientific or non-technical articles. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Students may join around 30 clubs or organizations' - the wording could be better and stronger, such as "The school has 30 clubs and organizations" - more direct.
      Done, but I still kept "around". Benny the mascot (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Benet's performing arts program has staged annual musicals since 1997, and the Benet bands have been invited before to perform in state events." - two things. Instead of using the "has/have" modifier, the wording would be stronger if you say "program began staging annual musicals in 1997, and the band program performed regularly in state events."
      I've implemented some of your changes ([27]), but your other suggestions sounded a bit odd in terms of wording, tone, and style. We can discuss this if you disagree, though. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanehink (talk) 21:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. I'm not happy about several aspects of this article, and I'm surprised to have to find myself saying that after the review has been open for so long.
    • Check what the Mos has to say about the punctuation of image captions.
      Captions fixed Benny the mascot (talk) 00:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Notable alumni section is just a bulleted list.
      This is not at all uncommon. See Plano Senior High School or Amador Valley High School, both FAs, for example. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why the image gallery?
      Removed Benny the mascot (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the writing is pretty dodgey. For instance, from the lead: "The school has around 30 clubs and organizations, including the Math Team or Science Olympiad team, which both have won awards in their state tournaments." "Or" and "both" just doesn't work here. "Benet's mascot is the Redwing. The athletic program fields 23 teams ...". How are those two thoughts related? It reads like a random brain dump.
      Hopefully fixed Benny the mascot (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but do remember that it's impossible to write a perfect article. Benny the mascot (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please: reviewers give up their time to give professional advice and judgement. Your comment, Benny, looks like a mild knock-back. BTW, we would be pleased if you reviewed a few nominations yourself to get a sense of the task from the other side. Tony (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you need to remember Benny is that I'm just trying to help you get this article through FAC by pointing out to you areas that I think need some attention. I certainly don't expect "perfection", but I do expect decent grammar and prose. The sourcing is a concern as well, as Karanacs has pointed out. It's not easy reviewing articles, and it takes time. Why not do as Tony suggests and try it for yourself, see what it feels like to be on the other side of the fence? I'm on both sides now, for instance, as I not infrequently am, with this offering. Why not offer your opinion on that? Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to offend you in any way; I'm just surprised that you've cast an "oppose" vote. It's not even a weak oppose! From what I've read on the FAC process, it's generally understood that all contributors have varying writing styles. From what I've seen in other FACs, people just "comment" when they have issues with the writing style, but never have I seen anyone oppose solely on the basis of criterion 1a. If you had opposed on the basis of sourcing issues, then I would have understood. And to mention that I got two additional oppose votes three weeks into the FAC; couldn't you have come a little earlier? If you had commented earlier, then maybe I could have addressed your concerns in a timely manner, and I wouldn't have had this false hope that the article could pass FAC. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't offended me in the slightest, and I'm really sorry that I wasn't able to fit in with your schedule, but the bottom line is that this article isn't ready. Like it or not, 1a) is one of the FA criteria, and unlike you I've seen many articles opposed on that basis alone. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine. I've addressed all four of your bullet points. I would appreciate it if you would respond to those now. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who appointed you my boss? I gave you a few examples, and Tony has given you a few more. This article is not ready. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just referring to the FAC instructions, which I'm sure you're very familiar with. If you take a look at the previous reviews, you would see that resolved objections are crossed off. And relax...I'll work on Tony's suggestions soon. Benny the mascot (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite relaxed, just as I'm certain that this article does not meet the FA criteria. It's not my choice whether or not this article is promoted, I've only offered my opinion, and I won't be offering it again. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  1. Suggest "Illinois" not be linked, since it's a chain-link already in the more specific "Lisle": that is where the readers need to be funnelled, surely. I would pipe down "Roman Catholic Diocese of Joliet in Illinois" to just "Diocese of Joliet", no matter what the target title is.
  2. "The orphanage moved in 1898 to Lisle, approximately 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago; St. Procopius also moved there in 1901." Could this be "In 1898, the orphanage moved to Lisle, about 25 miles (40 km) west of Chicago, to be joined by St. Procopius three years later." Or something like that. Then we don't get "in 1901. In 1926", apart from other issues.
  3. "Admission is competitive and relies primarily on test scores." Is the selectivity a modern thing? If so, tell us "since [year], ... has been ...".
  4. "The school's academic program has been featured in reports by the Chicago Sun-Times and US News and World Report." Um ... ok, to get such press coverage, the standards must be high, I guess. (Put the last sentence first?) You need to tell us this, or we're wondering whether newspapers do this all the time—churn through every school in the area over the years. I'd rather just know that it has received press coverage, with a ref tag to the dates and names of the newspapers at the bottom (or even not in the lead, but further down, is possible for the refs).
  5. Boys'
  6. "Benet's performing arts program began staging annual musicals in 1997, and the band program has previously performed in state events." The tense is odd: "has previously"? What is the time-benchmark here?
  7. Well-known hyphenated in my US dictionary, especially before the noun. "Grammy winning" is not the standard wording, and would need a hyphen anyway. Can you look at a few "Links to" articles from "Grammy awards" to see how it's worded?

On the basis of the lead, I think this is premature. Tony (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 19:05, 21 May 2010 [28].

Jordan River (Utah)[edit]

Nominator(s): Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Jordan River flows through four of the five largest cities in Utah including Salt Lake City. The river is one of three major tributaries of the Great Salt Lake. The article has undergone a peer review, GA review and a copy edit. Bgwhite (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

map Images seem fine, although a map of the North American continent showing the location of Utah may be helpful as many readers may be unfamiliar with US geography, and the location is only shown with reference to this state Fasach Nua (talk) 14:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by the page range from 4-1 to 3-54? The latter is before the former. Ucucha 16:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
egads, you have sharp eyes. I meant 4-1 to 4-34. It's fixed Bgwhite (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jordan River watershed includes the creeks of — I'd omit the underlined since they're all named as creeks anyway
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1270200,000 m³ — must be wrong
removed the extra zero Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • villagers graciously hosted them — where does Graciously come from, not in source?
gracious is not used in source. The Native Americans feed them, replenished their supplies, gave them new scouts.... gracious hosts. Would another word like kindness be better? Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The native birds have been replaced by black-billed magpie, mourning dove, ring-necked pheasant and starlings — The first two are US native species
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) More later Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object From a very brief look, found
    • normal hyphens used in page ranges
en dashed the article Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BCE mixed with Christian AD, and usage of dots or not is inconsistent
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The total average outflow from Utah Lake through the Jordan River is 416,000 acre feet (499,200,000 m³). The streams of Big Cottonwood Creek, Little Cottonwood Creek, Mill Creek, and Parley's Creek comprise 80% of the surface water flow to the river. Total estimated average inflow from eleven largest streams feeding the Jordan River is 129,000 acre feet (154,800,000 m³). Total average of water entering the Jordan River from sewage treatment plants is 92,000 acre feet (110,400,000 m³), estimated amount from groundwater is 121,000 acre feet (145,200,000 m³), the estimated amount from stormwater is 25,000 acre feet (30,000,000 m³), and the estimated amount of water returned from irrigation runoff, plus the over-watering of lawns and gardens is 18,000 acre feet (21,600,000 m³). The total estimated average outflow from the irrigation canals near the Jordan Narrows is 175,000 acre feet (210,000,000 m³). Total estimated outflow from the Surplus Canal and State Canal, two canals the flow directly into the Great Salt Lake, is 518,000 acre feet (621,600,000 m³). Total average amount of water entering the Great Salt Lake from the Jordan river is 106,000 acre feet (127,020,000 m³).

is like a bot reading from a stats sheet and punching out some pattern sentences YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed paragraph, again Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources issues: Very few; in general sourcing and referencing look excellent.

  • Ref 4. Your footnote wording seems somehow defensive. You say: "Online references give varying lengths, from 40 to 60 miles. Using data from Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL 2009, p. 18 as it gives river mileage." To give it a bit more authority I'd shorten this and merely say: "Length per Utah Division of Water Quality Jordan River TMDL 2009, p. 18 (some sources quote other lengths)"
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 22 and 51 are to the same web source, but are formatted slightly differently. Suggest make them consistent.
Fixed Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, no issues with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: FA-level stream articles include discharge data if available. Please see Larrys Creek and Aliso Creek (Orange County) for examples. The data should go into the geobox and also into a "Discharge" section of the "Course" section. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has gauges that record this data on many U.S. streams, and it is sometimes available from other sources such as watershed councils or state and local governments. An interactive USGS map here shows all of the USGS gauges in Utah, including at least one on the Jordan River. To meet the requirement for comprehensiveness, you need to add a summary of the Jordan River discharge data to the article. If this does not make sense, please ping me on my talk page.
There is no reliable "discharge" data. Currently the Jordan River output from Utah Lake is controlled by pumps. I had put in yearly averages (see comment above about "is like a bot reading from a stats sheet"). I've gotten responses that have ranged from the paragraph is fine to remove it. So, I'm at a loss Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Sorry, I read through the other comments last evening but the removed paragraph for some reason did not register with me as discharge data. Of course it is, but I'm in agreement with YellowMonkey that it's off-putting as written. Here's a compromise suggestion: The USGS has a succinct summary of the discharge data here over the gauge's entire period of record through 2008. It includes the gauge location, the all-time maximum and minimum recordings, and a statement about the peculiarities of this highly regulated stream. I think you could paraphrase that summary, since most of the essentials are there. You might add a sentence saying what percentage of the whole drainage basin this particular gauge covers. In addition, though it's not so easy to figure out the USGS options at first, it's usually possible to arrive at a close approximation of the average discharge by forcing the USGS software to produce the set of statistics you want. Here are the raw average discharge numbers over the life of the gauge; from this set of numbers, you can calculate the overall average by adding the annual averages and dividing by the number of years. (This is tedious). Although this average discharge will not tell anyone what the river is doing at any given moment, it's still useful as a gross measure, and the max and min discharges add additional information about what kind of critter this river is. If you use this method to calculate the average annual discharge, it would be good to add a note saying that the figure was derived from USGS data. Finetooth (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree on using the USGS gauge you've linked to. On average, 84% of the river has been diverted to the Surplus Canal before reaching this gauge. Plus, just over 100,000 acre-feet of water pass through the gauge location over a year. On average, there are 800,000 acre-feet of water flowing into the Jordan River over a year. The river's discharge beyond the Surplus canal is usually constant unless construction work needs to be done... Surplus canal is used for flood control. In the Jordan River's case, I think it's best to use the above acre-feet paragraph, but reworded... drop things like stormwater and irrigation. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complications make the system all the more interesting. I agree with you that the stats from the gauge I linked to are insufficient, and I like the summary you've written in your comment directly above this one. You know a lot more about this river than I, and I did not realize that the stream gauge was only measuring what is essentially the left-over water downstream of the Surplus Canal. I note that the PDF file I linked to for the Jordan River gauge says in part, "For records of Surplus Canal see station 10170500. For records of combined flow, see station 10170490." I'd recommend looking at the records for these other two gauges to see what they have to say before re-writing the discharge material. Even if you decide not to use the gauge data, I think it would be helpful to other researchers if you at least mentioned the existence of these gauges and included inline citations (one per gauge) or added links (one per gauge) to the "External links" section of the article. Finetooth (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watershed: The map colors are confusing. Why not reduce the visual complications by making the watershed one color and everything outside the watershed another color? Water bodies and place labels would be exceptions. Unless the color meanings are obvious, they need to be explained in the caption. WP:WPMAP has info on map conventions, and the existing FA articles on streams have a variety of maps that might provide insights.
I'm not sure what you are saying by "making the watershed one color and everything outside another color". I see where I need to change the labels of the creeks and rivers. I did something stupid and deleted the project files for the map, so I'll need to start over from scratch. Before I do, would like to get it straight about what color to use where. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I learned whatever I know about map-making largely by imitating the work of other Wikipedia editors whose maps I admired. If you look at the watershed map for Larrys Creek (by User:Ruhrfisch), you will see what I mean by "making the watershed one color and everything outside another color" (yellow and tan, in this case). It's no accident that these colors match those of the locator map. (I think the yellow is ffffd0 and the tan f7d3aa). The water on this map is blue, and the text is black. The map has a directional arrow and a scale. Everything essential is expressed with four colors and some text. The watershed map for St. Johns River (by User:Kmusser) uses, if I'm counting correctly, six colors, text, and a caption key to express complex information with maximum efficiency. It, too, makes the watershed and non-watershed areas quite clear with two colors. Finetooth (talk) 18:10, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is 7,500 feet elevation difference and three mountain ranges in the relatively small watershed. How do you show elevation? Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. All of my maps have been two-dimensional, and I'm unfamiliar with the software you are using. You might ask User:Kmusser, who made the Columbia River maps, or User:Shannon1, who created the watershed map for Aliso Creek, how to include topographic details without creating map clutter. I would just ignore the third dimension, but that might not be the best solution. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, there is more of a black-white background showing the topology. I'll do two maps with no captions, one with the black-white and one like the St. Johns River. Will show you both and I'll go with the one you like best. I'm not sure if I can do any wikipedia today, but will have by tomorrow Bgwhite (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Maps are difficult. I look forward to seeing the new versions. Finetooth (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Black/White map stank, so I just did the other map. It's in almost done form, just need to center it better. The map shows the canals. Tell me what needs to be changed. The map can be found here. I had to laugh at your statement of "unfamiliar with the software you are using." The problem isn't with the software, it's with the user. I'll work on more of your comments from below later tonight. Bgwhite (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<outdent>When I click on the link you've provided, I get this error message: "Sorry, the page (or document) you have requested is not available." I'm not familiar with Google docs, so the problem might be on my end. Not sure. Finetooth (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it would have helped if I had clicked save on permissions. The link should work now. Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a new map in the watershed section showing the geography and city locations... I'm assuming the new watershed map will go in the infobox Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add elevation to the basin map, take a look at File:Greenutrivermap.png for one way to do the shading. If you're using GIS I could give you the elevation I used for that map, though it might look pixelated scaling down that much - you can download more detailed elevation data from http://seamless.usgs.gov/. Kmusser (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The State of Utah has scattered land holdings of 9,778 acres (39.57 km2) throughout the watershed" - It might improve readability to round numbers like this to 9,800 acres and convert to square miles as well as square kilometers.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Salt Lake City receives 16.5 inches (42 cm) of precipitation annually." - Rainfall and general precipitation are usually expressed in millimeters, although snowfall is expressed in centimeters.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History: "United States Army's Corp of Topographical Engineers" should be "United States Army Corps of Topographical Engineers", probably linked to United States Army Corps of Engineers#History.
I put the link in, but I would prefer Topographical Engineers (TE) as his reports and books were filed under TE (including the article's reference) and resources I've looked at note him as a TE. Bgwhite (talk) 07:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The TE and link are fine, but "Corp" should be "Corps", and I don't think you need the "'s" on "Army's".
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Finetooth comments:
Course
Does the river run parallel to any significant highways along parts of its course? Do any significant highways cross the river? Do any significant bridges cross the river?
No bridges. Salt Lake Valley uses a north-south/east-west grid system. So, all major north-south roads run parallel to the river and all major east-west roads cross the river. Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the course description should include the most important roads, like Interstates 80 and 215, that either closely parallel or cross the river. These should pretty easily fit into the existing course description. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With stream course descriptions, the convention is to begin at the source and proceed to the mouth and to identify tributaries as entering from either the right bank or the left. Compass directions generally don't work well because most streams don't flow in a straight line. The Jordan River does, so east and west work relatively well, but I'd still recommend at least adding a clarifying "left" for "west" and "right" for "east" on the first use of these terms.
Geology
A peer reviewer of an earlier version of this article mentioned the need for a geology section, saying " ...most of the pollution seems to be mine related, so I think this is especially important to include". I agree. Where did all that copper come from? What made the mountains? What happened in the region before the Pleistocene?
History
"The local Timanogots villagers graciously hosted them and told them of the lake to the north." - I agree with User:Jimfbleak about "graciously". It's an editorial comment expressing a point of view. If you simply delete the word, the sentence is fine.
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Watershed
The lead mentions that the river flows through four big cities. How big? Shouldn't they be mentioned in this section?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
River modifications
"The commission's 1885 decision stated that if the lake level were to rise above the established compromise level, the Jordan River must not be impeded by either dams or flood gates." - "Could not be" rather than "must not be"?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, the commission stated that after water pumps were installed at the mouth of the river, the pumps should all be working if the lake were to rise above the compromise level." - Do you mean the source of the river rather than the mouth?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, if the lake level fell below the compromised level, the river may be dammed so that water could be held for storage in Utah Lake." - "Could be dammed" rather than "may be dammed"? Also, "compromise level" rather than "compromised level"?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wildlife
"Unfortunately, once-common native species such as the willow flycatcher, gray catbird, warbling vireo, American redstart, black tern, and yellow-billed cuckoo are no longer found along the river." - Delete "unfortunately" since it expresses an editorial opinion (point of view).
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pollution
"In 1948, the river in Murray recorded a total coliform level of 2.94x107 per 100 millimeters" - Do you mean milliliters (ml)? And should you say "2.94x107 bacteria" rather than using the raw number by itself?
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but looking at this again, I see a further problem. You write that "In 1948, the river in Murray recorded a total coliform level of 2.94x107 per 100 milliliters... ". The source says, "Murray, before a chlorination program was started, had an average coliform count of 2,770,000." The source then lists readings for several places, including Midvale at 29,400,000. Midvale appears to be different from Murray, and the numbers are hugely different. Should the existing number in the article be changed to 2,770,000? Or should "Midvale" be substituted for "Murray" in the text? If the latter, be careful to say something like "in the early 1960s" rather than "1948" for the Midvale numbers, since the counts, according to the source, were taken in different years. A further suggestion: these particular big numbers are not too big to write out, and I think they would be easier for most readers to grasp than the scientific shorthand. Or you might consider saying something like "an average coliform count of about 3 million per 100 milliliters". This would make it easier to compare to the 5,000 per 100 milliliters. Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PDF documents
Dates consisting solely of a month and year don't need commas separating the two parts; e.g., "June, 2004" should be "June 2004".
Done Bgwhite (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finetooth (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may seem really simple compared with all the professional comments above, but I think that there needs to be a picture in the geobox and the map should also go in the geobox. Shannontalk contribs 20:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:50, 21 May 2010 [29].

Copa Libertadores[edit]

Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have been a little green before. After thoroughly following the guidelines set in Wikipedia:FA criteria, I believe the article is truly ready to become a candidate. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! I can't believe they died so fast...well, I took out the "Additional Information" title...now that you mention it, it looks redundant.Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator has had two (three, if you count an instant re-nom of the first article) previous FAC noms archived within the last few days. This particular nom therefore violates the rules: "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating." Furthermore, the PR -- which was previously blanked -- was open for less than three days and received paltry attention. Time should have been given for a proper review by someone familiar with the FA criteria before coming here; sometimes it takes longer than you'd like, but it's always worth the wait. The GA nom was also removed, I see, before a review could have been given. Jamen, patience is a virtue. Rarely is an article ready for the big leagues after only three days and little review. María (habla conmigo) 18:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a fast editor (although I am a nice, slow guy). You tell me if there is anything wrong, missing, etc. and I would probably fix it immediately (the above comment being a prime example). Just don't ask me to paint the moon green. Jamen Somasu (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct the WP:MSH errors. And, although Karanacs may be willing to let this nom run, I am not. Reviewers have begged and pleaded for FAC instructions to be respected, to lower the backlog. Take two weeks, and please do not continue abusing of the FAC process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 18:46, 21 May 2010 [30].

Elizabeth II[edit]

Nominator(s): KingOfTheLynn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is well written and perfectly accurate, and is among one of the best articles on Wikipedia. KingOfTheLynn (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • One concern that I would like to raise over the article is the prose and focus in the lead.
  • Prose: The first sentence is unwieldy because of the long list of realms. This has been discussed before on the talk page, inconclusively, because it is difficult to see how it can be changed without creating a new problem. If we remove some of the smaller realms where do we draw the line? If we remove all the realms and use a single term "Commonwealth realms", does the lead become less understandable? One possibility is for the first sentence to select one of the realms only such as: "Elizabeth II is the queen regnant of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms, and Head of the Commonwealth." However, many editors of the page will disagree with this, understandably so, because they have a good case for inclusion of the other realms.
I agree that queen of UK and Commonwealth realms is enough, the list is a big WP:UNDUE in the lead, IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Focus: As discussed on the talk page before, I would like to see "Supreme Governor of the Church of England" removed from the lead. While it is true that as the Head of State of the United Kingdom she is the ceremonial head of the established Church of England, she actually holds no power in the Church, makes no decisions for the Church, and has performed no actions of special significance in or for the Church, or made any controversial or particularly notable statements regarding the Church. In my opinion, singling out one of her many ceremonial roles as Head of State of the United Kingdom places undue weight on that role. There is no reason why this function of the Head of State should be given precedence in the lead, because she is not known for her role in or active in the running of the Church. She is not known as a religious figure or leader: she is known as the Head of State of 32 countries and the ceremonial head of the Commonwealth.
  • If this nomination does attract reviews, I'm sure that I and the other editors of the page will do our best to respond positively and constructively to comments. However, it is only fair to point out that even changes that reviewers might consider minor could require substantial discussion before implementation. DrKiernan (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If this nomination is going to remain open, let me just say: the reference style is bizarre. Why separate each print source from one another, and in turn separate those from the rest of references? I see no reason for it, and have never seen such usage in an FA before -- correct me if I'm wrong, but even if I am, yuck. I suggest creating a separate bibliography, in which each print source's bibliographic details are given in full. You can then note the shorthand footnote citation in the one "Reference" section, implementing Harvard, in which each shorthand cite is linkable to the bibliographic record, or just keep it bare text (which is how I personally handle such things; the less code the better for me), but anything is better than the current setup. To have the online citations separated from the print is inelegant and confusing, IMO. María (habla conmigo) 12:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it bare text. I hate Harvard style; it just creates a mass of pointless blue links and adds template load to the page. DrKiernan (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I prefer it, as well; much better presentation, nice work. :) María (habla conmigo) 13:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links, no dead external links. Ucucha 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opening prose issues in the lead.

  • English really is capable of ugliness, isn't it. "regnant"? Sorry, but it sticks out as unattractive and unknown to almost all readers (me included) without hitting the link and reading its opening at least twice. Could this distinction with queen consort not be made later in the article?
  • So the Crown possesses Canada, does it? I think many people might find this statement a little bizarre, even if there might be an arcane legalistic argument for this concept.
  • "Shared monarchy" is a bit hard to understand without dwelling on it. Who shares what?
  • Is she supreme governor of the whole of the Church of England, worldwide, or only in the UK? I've been roundly corrected for assuming the former.
  • Infobox: I've tried before but been howled down: I find "[date] – present" very clunky and unfortunate in its emphasis of a moving target that we are not always quick to update. This is endemic in pop culture bio articles. Is there anything wrong with "Since [full date]"?
  • In 1926, the US wasn't vying with the British Empire as "the world's formost power", given the American role in WWI?
  • Couple of bumpy places, like this: "Elizabeth married Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, in 1947, and"—consider removing the comma after the full name (before "in", here). There's another example previously in the lead. And there's another here: "the private lives of their children were subject to great press attention, and contributed to increased discontent with the monarchy, which reached its peak on the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997." I presume these assertions are well-referenced in the body of the article ... and should it be "were the subject of"?
  • Oh, I see "in order to", which makes me want to do a Hitler salute. Just "to", please.
  • Some good images, I must say. Needs a prose run-through, and it's just a little bit like there's a carrot stuck up the article's ass. How rude is that. Sorry! Tony (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "regnant" removed. I suspect it will be restored.I was right. It lasted for exactly three minutes.
  • Possession of Canada removed.
  • "Shared monarchy": not addressed yet.
  • She is supreme governor only in the UK: made explicit.
  • Infobox: implemented: let's hope it sticks here.
  • "the world's foremost power", changed to " a pre-eminent world power"
  • "Elizabeth married Prince Philip...": sentences simplified. The assertions are referenced in the body of the article. Should it be "were the subject of"?: possibly.
  • "in order to": changed.
  • The carrot won't be easy to shift: it's wedged in. DrKiernan (talk) 16:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My initial concern was that the nominator has 0 edits to the article and no evidence of previous interest in it, despite a eulogistic nom statement. Are the regular editors satisfied that the article, as it now is, fulfils all the FA criteria? Assuming that they are, perhaps they would comment on the choice of the texts that form the bibliography: the egregious Crawfie, Brandreth, Jennie Bond - these are not historians of substance. Ben Plimlott is, yet he is relegated to Further Reading. The popular writers and magazine journalists have their place but frankly, in an encyclopedia article on the long-time Head of State of a major Western country, I would have expected a greater weighting towards scholarship. From a glance at the sources there is a sense of Elizabeth-lite. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:50, 18 May 2010 [31].

Enter the Grave[edit]

Nominator(s): LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to nominate current Good Article Enter the Grave as a Featured Article Candidate, a 2007 album by Huddersfield heavy metal act Evile. While the article seems short somewhat, I feel it's comprehensive in that it draws upon all the information currently available on the topic. The album isn't well known by heavy metal audiences or by a well known band (for example, it sold roughly just 200 copies in the US in its first week of release), so for that reason, there isn't as much published material available. All feedback is welcomed and thanked for in advance. I hope the article proves to be a good read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs)

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 19:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • With Ealdgyth on holiday, I'll ask her traditional question: given that blabbermouth.net isn't necessarily a reliable source (it relies quite heavily on press releases and reproducing material from musicians' own websites), is it only used as a source for material that isn't open to question (names, dates and the like)?
I have to 110% disagree with your assertion Blabbermouth.net isn't a reliable source, given the fact I've written four previous FAs which use the site as a source. Blabbermouth.net is the premiere online resource for metal news, and has been cited as a source by several outlets including NME. When a given metal musician has news they want known, such as the fact they've started recording a new CD, Blabbermouth is the first online site they tell, and is a reliable source on metal. It's more reliable on metal than any print or online resource you care to name. On another note, what actually makes you think other websites don't use press releases? I can assure you they do, and quite often. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue with blabbermouth is exactly the same as that raised (and not addressed) two years ago at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eyes of the Insane. It may be a reliable source in Wikipedia terms, but it certainly looks to an outsider like a collection of press releases. That other websites also reproduce press releases is irrelevant; aside from a very few sites where the fact that the website has chosen to reproduce the press release makes the release notable, I wouldn't consider them RSs either. (The BBC's biography of Michael Jackson is a verbatim lift from Wikipedia; that doesn't make Wikipedia a reliable source.) It's entirely possible that Blabbermouth is a legitimate source, but it's equally possible that it isn't, and the four previous FAs aren't really relevant—they were all promoted in 2007 when the FAC standards were very different. – iridescent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the FAC standards were not "very different" at all - that's actually an assumption on your part, and is 110% untrue. The last time standards changed really was due to the introduction of citations. If they were, then what you're suggesting is the previous four FAs I wrote aren't up to standard - if they aren't, nominate them at FAR, and I'm more than happy to explain in detail why three years later they still adhere to the same standard. In fact, I'd happily pit them against any article promoted in 2010. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point - I did 110% address the issue Gimmetrow raised about Blabbermouth.net (I was the one who nominated "Eyes of the Insane", three years ago and not two), an issue which is raised at every heavy metal FAC because those who don't have knowledge of metal comment, no offence to yourself. Frankly, I get fed up of it because I have to explain it over and over to other users - it isn't my problem if users aren't familiar with metal, and assume the worst about sources unless it's Rolling Stone or some other tripe. At that FAC, may I add the issue Gimmetrow raised wasn't deemed valid or else the FAC would have failed. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Rasmussen had earlier produced three Metallica albums, and some journalists commented on his role" mean? As written, that could mean anything from "why is this legend working with a band I never heard of before?" to "his work with Metallica was awful, couldn't they have got someone better?";
It means what it says, which is a) Rasmussen had produced three Metallica CDs and b) Some journalists commented on his role. Nothing more, nothing less. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any total sales figures? I appreciate they may not exist;
Nope. Besides, sales figures change all the time because a record keeps selling copies. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're never complete—it's just if any chart positions etc are recorded anywhere, they're useful to readers. – iridescent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, and a fair point. What I'll do is add that info in the Huddersfield Examiner you mentioned, which I'd like to thank you for. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it get any coverage in the non-metal press – either the newspapers, or more mainstream music press like the NME, MTV etc? If so, it probably ought to be mentioned even if they didn't have much to say, to show that it received coverage outside the preaching-to-the-faithful world of specialist magazines (see the way Enta da Stage, No Depression, or the probably more comparable God Hates Us All handle it);
No, it didn't get any coverage in the non-metal press. More to the point, God Hates Us All sold 51K copies in its first week of US release, whereas this album did 200. In other words, for every copy Enter the Grave sold in its debut week, God Hates Us All sold 255 copies.
Just asking… On a quick Google News search, I can see at the very least a feature in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner, which demonstrates that they were receiving at least local interest outside the metal fraternity, and provides a RS for a sales figure of 30,000 as of 2009. – iridescent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - didn't see that article. I'll add the information as it relates to record sales on Saturday. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a very quick skim, I've already found and fixed three glaring typos and a "might've"; it could do with a top-to-bottom check;
I'll give it a check accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check done. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any tours to promote it and if so did anything of note happen on them?
The article concerns the album, and solely the album. As far as I am aware, noting tours a band has been on during an album cycle isn't an FA requirement, because many other album FAs do not note tours. Some writers have at their own discretion, but I choose not to at my own discretion because the article is about an album and not a tour. LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable enough; my personal view would be that if a tour significantly affected sales of an album it warrants mention, otherwise not. – iridescent 18:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, I hope when you say "a fair amount" needs cleaning up you are referring to other points you've yet to raise, because aside from the issue you raised about typos, none of the other points you raised I feel are valid, particularly the Blabbermouth one because every heavy metal FA uses Blabbermouth for information (and not just dates etc.) LuciferMorgan (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's closer to "there" than "not there", but it still has a fair amount that needs cleaning up. – iridescent 20:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, and thanks very much for your comments - they're much appreciated. Seemed to forget my etiquette there. :( LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References comment: In the cite book template the pages field is for reference to a page range, not to indicate the total no. of pages in the book. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me address this? I'm not sure what is meant by this comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. Under the "References" heading you have used the "cite book" template for the McIver book. In this template, the "pages=" field is only used when you are limiting your references to a particular page or page range within the book. You were using the field, I think, to give the number of pages in the book. I have now removed the information from the template so no further action is required. Brianboulton (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, and thanks very much for your help and input. LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • The lead doesn't seem to fully summarise the rest of the article.
Which parts specifically do you feel aren't summarized?
For example, the "Recording" section has four large paragraphs and is represented in the lead by just (I think) two sentences. The band first contacting their producer isn't mentioned. In "Marketing and promotion", it mentions that "Thrasher" was released (as a single?); this isn't mentioned in the lead. There are three paragraphs on critical reception and these are only summarised by part of one sentence in the lead, stating that "the album received generally favorable critical reviews". --BelovedFreak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being specific. What I'll do is get onto this in the next few days, and address this concern accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that it's about an album by an English band, is there a reason that the dates are in "Month day, year" format?
Just followed the format I used with previous album FACs of mine, which were by a US band. Is there a rule / guideline regarding this? I'll of course follow it accordingly. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really a novice at FAC, so I don't know how rigorously this is followed, but according to WP:STRONGNAT, "Articles on topics with strong ties to a particular English-speaking country should generally use the more common date format for that nation. For the U.S. this is month before day; for most others it is day before month."--BelovedFreak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date formats in the references are inconsistent and should be eg. 6 April 2010 rather than 06 April 2010 (no leading zeros; WP:MOSDATE).
I've addressed this I believe. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. I've addressed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the references to offline magazine reviews, do you have page numbers for those? Also, could we have publishers & internal links to articles where they exist (eg. Kerrang!)?
I don't unfortunately. The offline reviews are taken from scanned pages of the relevant magazines, but I cannot discern the page numbers. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Would we be able to have the internal links & publishers for those missing them? (eg. nos 31-34.) Also, did any of them have titles, or were they all just called Enter the Grave review, or untitled?--BelovedFreak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm ok. To appease you, I've duly addressed this. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the {{Album ratings}} template if you wanted to include that in the "Critical Reception" section. It has a similar effect.--BelovedFreak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--BelovedFreak 13:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your constructive comments. I'll address your comment regarding the lead once I have a better understanding of your comment. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I've made that clearer.--BelovedFreak 20:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 17:50, 18 May 2010 [32].

Sherman Minton[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a really interesting article I bet anyone would enjoy reading! (If this sounds disingenuous its because it is. I am begging for a review) Minton was a US Supreme Court Justice and a Senator, he is idolized to a degree in Southern Indiana. He is also ranked among the WORST justices on the Supreme court, and had a few interesting quirks. If you want to learn something interesting about the New Deal, or something interesting about the Supreme Court, this article is for you!

Also it is thoroughly researched, GA reviewed, Peer reviewed, and reviewed by a lawyer during its last candidacy here. I look forward to any reviews and will work to quickly resolve any issues which may arise. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Still no dab links and dead external links. Ucucha 18:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I cannot eat a Wikipedia article, but I can read and try to improve one. :)

  • "He replied to Republican attacks in the speech and claimed while the constitution should be upheld, it could not be eaten by the starving masses, therefore the needs of the masses were more important than the need to uphold the constitution." feels comma splicey. Semicolon after "masses"?
  • Check that aren't any more refs that have double periods, more than one "date" attribute in their tags, etc.
  • Date formats look good. I'd prefer just Month Day, Year throughout (even the accessdates) for consistency with the text, publish dates, and U.S. theme, but otherwise ok.

--an odd name 19:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these. [33] Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of Month Day, Year (in full) as opposed to MM-DD-YYYY, but no biggie (I changed it). Thanks! --an odd name 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bust_of_Sherman_Minton_in_the_Rotunda_of_the_Indiana_Statehouse.jpg This is a derived work of a derived 3D art work, have you a reference that the original artwork is PD? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original work is not public domain, however it is owned by the state of Indiana. Under Indiana Code 5-14-3, the work can be freely copied unless the state submits in writing a notice that we may not to use it. I added a more appropriate template to the image page. If you still object I can remove the image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tag again—retained copyright implies that it is not in public domain. However, I'm very concerned about the "unless the state submits in writing a notice that we may not to use it" part—if this is the case, that implies a revocable license, which would not be suitable for Commons. Thus, it would require non-free use, and need to be moved here to meet the relevant criteria. --an odd name 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could look the law up for exact verbage, but its my understanding that the state can send notice only if it is being used in a way that is grossly offensive or materially harms the states. I don't think either of these cases apply here, and that is the only reason the state does not make a full copyright release. I don't have a problem moving it over to the wikipedia or removing it from the article - I can find other useful images for the same section. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll give it another look, but it may be several days until I can get to it. I reviewed it for the first FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will not get to it until Tuesday or Wednesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's Thursday where I am !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • What is the reason for the redlinks in refs 109 and 142?
  • Page number formats should be consistent throughout: see refs 149, 154, 155

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The red links are because I suspect that at some point there will be articles for those topics as is the case for all the other SCOTUS citations; WP:SCOTUS is in the process of creating articles for all the supreme court decisions, but haven't gotten to them yet. I removed the one for the 7th circuit case. I can remove them if you think it is appropriate. I've added the missing "p." s to the other citations. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Yes it is an interesting article. I have some prose and clarity questions.

  • Lead:
ascention ...? I got flak for using " ascension to the throne" (the reviewer said only Jesus ascends) in the War of the Bavarian Succession. Although I have no problem with the use of ascension here, at least can we spell it right?
Changed to "suceeded" —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
he was fiercely partisan and championed President Franklin D. Roosevelt's unsuccessful court packing plans in the Senate and became one of his top allies in the Senate through his partisan investigations of... how about he championed, because use use partisan later in the sentence....?
fixed, only using "partisan" once now —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minton also became a close friend of fellow senator Harry Truman, and was speculated to be on the short-list for several of Roosevelt's choices for Supreme Court Justices. These two parts of the sentence don't go together. Roosevelt didn't like Truman much.
Agreed. I've separated them. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
to be re/elected These usages are awkward. Would you consider rewording these?
Reworded. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He served on the Supreme Court for seven years where he advocated judicial restraint and opposed judicial activism. ... well, yes, Aren't these terms implied opposites? If one supports restraint, wouldn't one necessarily oppose activism? .... From XXXX to XXXX he served on the Supreme Court, where he advocated judicial restraint in such decisions as....
True, I've pared that back. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Initially a regular supporter of the majority opinions, he became a regular dissenter after the makeup of the court was altered due to the deaths and replacements of three of his fellow jurists. .... This could be clearer. After the shift in the composition of the Bench with the appointments of X and Y, Minton became a regular dissenting voice in Court decisions.
Fixed, I think. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His poor health forced his retirement in 1956...?
Changed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Historians also note the stark contrast between his partisan liberal positions in the Senate, but his unusual shift to conservative judicial positions on the court. This is awkward. Perhaps "but" should be "and" Or.... Historians also note the start contrast between the partisan Senator and the conservative jurist.
Better now, I think. Check it out: "Historians also note the unusual stark contrast between his role as a partisan liberal Senator and his role as a conservative jurist." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His shift in position is attributed to the disdain he held for the court when it ruled unconstitutional New Deal legislation during his time in the Senate.... unconstitutional could probably come after New Deal legislation... But I also don't understand how this is an explanation of the shift.
I am not sure how to summarize this easily. When he was a senator, he railed against the court for ruling legislation unconstitutional, saying they didn't have the authority, etc, to do what they did. At that time though the legislation being challenged and ruled unconstitutional was liberal\socialist oriented. But when he was on the court, Congress had became much more conservative and was instead passing more conservative\capitalist oriented legislation. So, even though he personally disliked the legislation (because it was not his own position) he felt he had to uphold it because of his opinion that the court could not overrule the will Congress. So in that way, he was very conservative in his legal opinions, but liberal in his politics. Essentially he was in the school of original intent thinking, which was good for him when liberals were running Congress, bu backfired on him when he became a justice because of the change in the makeup of Congress. If that makes any sense..! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minton's legacy on the court lays in his attempts to keep peace on the court during a time when it riven by feuds between the other justices and his influence on the constitutionality of government loyalty tests. "Lays?" I'm confused about this sentence. Minton's legacy as a Supreme Court justice ... and what about his legacy as a Senator?
I don't know so much that he had a legacy as a Senator, really. There was nothing particularly noteworthy he did that succeeded. He was a freshman senator, the bills he authored were never passed, and his two big pushes (the media investigations and spearheading the court packing plan) never worked out. I've fixed the sentence though, I think. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about: Historians attribute his shift in position to the relationship between the New Deal senators, of which he was one, and the conservative court, which ruled much of the New Deal legislation as unconstitutional. By the time Minton became a justice, the positions were reversed: the Senate had become more conservative and the Court more liberal. As a Supreme Court Justice, Minton frequently played the role of peace-maker and consensus builder during a period when the Court was riven with feuds. He was also influential in the Court's position on government loyalty tests.
I've integrated this, I worry that the lead is getting a bit cumbersome though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few questions. Very interesting article. I'll post more later. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you review! I look forward to more. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is improved, and I've tweaked a couple of verbs in the lead. I'll wait until you deal with the rest of Malleus' comments, before I post anything more. Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lead is getting cumbersome. I've made some direct suggestions on it. Feel free to revert. I've removed some of the non-notable stuff, and consolidated some stuff. See if that works better for you. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support/pending resolution of issues raised by Tony1 and Steve (below). The lead is much better now, and although there are few minor glitches within the text itself, I'm sure those will be ironed out with the resolution of the issues below. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is obviously pretty comprehensive, and it's generally pretty good. It ends pretty strongly I think, but there are a few rough edges before Minton's political career gets underway. No show-stoppers that I can see, but here are a few examples:
    • "He took an officers training course at Fort Benjamin Harrison in hope of earning a commission, but was not among those awarded." Awarded just doesn't seem like the right word here. You get awarded with something, in this case a commission I guess.
    • Some parts are very choppy; he did this ... he did that ... then he did the other, as in the last paragraph of the Education section: "He continued debating at Yale and won the Wayland Club prize for extemporaneous public speaking. He earned a masters degree from Yale in 1916. While at Yale Law School he helped to organize the university’s legal aid society. He received a post graduate degree."
      • I tried to fix this instance. I will read it over again and try to fix anymore I notice. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After Roosevelt's death and Vice President Truman's ascention to the Presidency ...". I've never seen the word "ascention", at least never spelt like that and in that context.
    • "Sherman Minton was born on October 20, 1890 to John Evan and Emma Livers Minton in a four-room home ...". I'm struggling to see the relevance of the number of rooms his home had.
      • Removed, its one of the phrases here when I started. In the US, the size of a house is often used as a symbol of social status, especially in older times. In those days, log cabin or one room represented the lowliest, while a four-bedroom would indicate a middleclass home. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "He was the third of the family's five children and was nicknamed Shay because of his younger brother's inability to properly pronounce his name." It looks like we're talking about the younger brother's inability to properly pronounce his own name, not Sherman's.
    • "The death was an emotional blow to Minton, who thereafter refused to attend church and was known to speak against God ...". What's the significance of "known to" here?
      • There is a little controversy over Minton's status as a "catholic" justice. Many people list him as catholic, but in reality he was agnostic at best. His wife drug him to mass after he retied from the court. This sentence helps establish his break with religion. I removed that part of the sentance though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... Minton's father remarried to Sarah Montague on December 3, 1901". Remarried to seems rather idiosyncratic phrasing.
      • That is common phrasing in the US for widowers and divorcees, but I removed the "re". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As Minton grew older, he continued getting into trouble with the neighborhood." Can you get into trouble with a neighborhood, as opposed to in one?
    • "... he took a job as a Swift Company salesman in the Fort Worth area to continue saving money". Continue saving money? Didn't he take the job to earn money?
      • Well, he earned the money so he could save it and return to school. Changed it to "...to earn money for college." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "As commissioner, Minton successfully imposed regulations that cut the total of all state telephone bills by $525,000". He wasn't cutting the total, he was reducing the bills.

Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I am going to read through again and try to tighten up and fix and rough spots. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm not able to do a full review today, but I did get through the first half of the article after lunch. The overall quality of this article is good, but I do have several concerns so far, listed below:
  • "Sherman Minton was born on October 20, 1890 to John Evan and Emma Livers Minton in home in Georgetown Indiana.[1]"
There should be a comma between the city and the state.
Fixed, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of the serial comma varies in this article. It should be standardized, one way or the other. Compare "There he participated in the football, baseball and track teams." with "Minton and his unit served on the front at Verdun, Soissons, and in Belgium."
Fixed this instance, I didn't notice any others. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As Minton grew older, he was frequently into trouble with the people in his neighborhood."
Either "in trouble" or "got into trouble".
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minton stated on several occasions his personal preference to affirm to the lower courts."
I suggest recasting to "affirm the decisions of the lower courts."
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The court's most notable decisions with the longest impact were in the cases of Sunkist v. Sunkist and Kellogg’s v. General Mills, making it possible for different companies to use the same brand and product name as long as they produced dissimilar products.[101]"
Confusing; while Sunkist and Sunkist might have made dissimilar products, Kellogg's and General Mills make similar products.
In Sunkist v Sunkist, one was a bread brand, while the other was a fruit brand, they got to keep their names. Kellogs and General Mills each sold a oatmeal cereal, one called "Oaties", the other "Wheat Oaties"; General Mills was forced to change the name because the products and names were top similar. So one case was in regards to a "brand name", and the other in regards to a "product name". Kellogs v General Mills came first, and won forcing the stoppage of GM's use of "Wheat Oaties", which was a new precedent. Other companies then wanted to block their competitors and launched similar suits. So in Sunkist v Sunkist, the court then had to set a new precedent to limit their first precedent, resulting in case law allowing names to be same, so long as products were dissimilar. I will think how I can summarize that better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the case of United States v. Knauer, the government was denying the wife of a United States Citizen entry into the country because of her possible ties to Nazism."
Should "Citizen" be capitalized here?
Probably not, fixed. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In a much criticized majority opinion which Minton co-authored with Judge Major, he stated that the "alien did not have any legal right—his status was a political decision to be made by officials in government."[109]"
Wasn't the alien a woman?
I noticed that when adding the quote. I believe he was generalizing at this point in the opinion. I've changed the to [her], for better flow. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minton is the only native of Indiana to be appointed to the court."
This sentence comes right in the middle of the prose discussing his Supreme Court nomination, long before his actual appointment. It seems odd here, and might work better near "As of 2010, Minton remains the last member of Congress, sitting or former, to be appointed to the United States Supreme Court.[129]"
Moved —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you review! I look forward to more comments. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After loosing his reelection campaign..."
Typo alert.
Fixed! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to biographer William Radcliff, the majority opinion authored by Minton in the 1953 case Barrows v. Jackson, was his most skillfully written opinion."
The second comma in this sentence should be nuked.
Fixed, —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At times, their ideological disagreements escalated to personal disagreements, leading justices to refused to speak with each other."
Should be 'refuse'.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Further reading" consists of mostly fully-cited bibliographies, with a couple of exceptions. What is the ISBN for Barnes, Catherine A. (1978) Men of the Supreme Court: Profiles of the Justices, pp. 111–113.? What volume or supplement is Minton in, in the Dictionary of American Biography?
ISBN added. Volume added too. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images:
File:Sherman Minton's official United States Supreme Court photograph.jpg Public domain, as a US government work.
File:1920 Sherman Minton Democratic Primary campaign poster.jpg Public domain; work published before 1923.
File:Shermanminton.jpg Public domain, as a US government work.
File:Harry S Truman, bw half-length photo portrait, facing front, 1945-crop.jpg Public domain; US government work.
File:Warren Supreme Court.jpg Public domain; US government work.
File:Bust of Sherman Minton in the Rotunda of the Indiana Statehouse.jpg Charles, does the State of Indiana maintain an official website which states Indiana Code 5-14-3? You could link to the code's webpage itself in the template, making it easier to verify the license.
In regards to the final image, here is the law [34]. You have to read it carefully, it defines a public record as "any writing, paper, report, study, map, photograph, book, card, tape recording, or other material that is created, received, retained, maintained, or filed by or with a public agency and which is generated on paper, paper substitutes, photographic media, chemically based media, magnetic or machine readable media, electronically stored data, or any other material, regardless of form or characteristics." By that definition, this bust, which is owned by the Department of Administration which oversees the Indiana Statehouse, is a public record. Therefore, "Any person may inspect and copy the public records of any public agency", which "includes transcribing by handwriting, photocopying, xerography, duplicating machine, duplicating electronically stored data onto a disk, tape, drum, or any other medium of electronic data storage, and reproducing by any other means." It also says, "A public agency may not deny or interfere with the exercise of the right [to copy]." - That said, I can see where there are possible conflicts with the public domain requirements of the commons, and I don't have any problem removing that image from this article, I have other equally useful ones I could replace it with which are more clearly public domain. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to remove the image; in fact, please don't. A simple link to the law in the licensing text like this is certainly sufficient. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs copy-editing. I've tweaked the lead. There are yet more issues there to deal with. Probably the jump-the-gun problem isn't as bad in the body of the article, but an independent audit is required. Shouldn't be too long a job, but it must be someone new to the text.

  1. Why is "United States Senate" linked twice in the first two sentences, once by pipe?
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I've fixed a few little irritants in the lead.
  2. "An advocate of judicial restraint, initially, Minton was a regular supporter of the majority opinions; after a shift in the composition of the Bench, he became a regular dissenter." But you haven't told us that the Bench was already characterised by judicial restraint. Cart before horse.
Fixed —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Does MoS say to capitalise Judge? Why not Jurist, then? I think at least when there's no name adjacent, you don't capitalise.
I don't know of an MOS guideline on this. I would say capitalize "Justice", but not judge or jurist. Literature typically capitalizes when referring to the Supreme Court, but not lower courts. MOS does say to capitalize when using the term as part of a title before a proper name. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Legal historians rank Minton among the Supreme Court's worst Justices, primarily because he almost uniformly ruled in favor of the government." Also jumps the gun ... so those legal historians were angled towards an anti-government-is-good-stance? We'd like to know first. "always" better than "uniformly". And it was the federal government, yes?
  2. He ruled in favor of government at all levels; the groundbreaking loyalty test case was in favor a state government, for example. The historians, according to Gugin, angle in favor of judicial activism and against judicial restraint. I've changed to "order over freedom", to quote one of my sources. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ah, now we find out in passing that he was "conservative" as a jurist. Meaning "right wing"? I'm getting confused between judicial restraint, anti-government, and rightwing politics: they can co-exist in almost any permutation in one judge, depending on the sociopolitical context and their personal attitudes. This needs to be made clear and easy for the readers by announcing what he was known as, first, rather than in passing like this.
Minton was very.. complex. He was liberal in politics and very partisan in that regard. However he was one of the strongest proponents of judicial restrain to ever be on the court. When he was on the court, Congress was relatively conservative and as a result he ended up supporting decisions that favored conservative legislation and government power - but he actually disagreed with the laws personally. This is explain in more detail in the article - he was liberal in politics, but conservative in judicial philosophy. One can't really look at the court in political terms. In the context of the court, conservative means original intent, judicial restraint, liberal means living document and judicial activism. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Minton worked to pay his high school expenses"—sounds like his school charged fees: is that right? Tony (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of that may be my fault, Tony. The lead was getting cumbersome, and losing focus on the notability-ness of the subject and I was trying to help consolidate some of the text. It wasn't uncommon, I think, for high schools to charge fees at that point--even up to WWII. Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He did have to pay some of his school expenses, but it was more aimed at the fact that he was on his own at the time, his family was living in Texas, and he was totally supporting himself and paying his own way in life. I've reworded this better. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's within touching distance on 1a. I've been applying a light brush section-by-section whenever I've found a few minutes spare during the day, but the article is a lot longer than I realised, and I'll struggle to get through it all in the next couple of days. I'll keep plugging away, but it could really use someone with an uninterrupted hour or two to spare. Anyway, here's some stuff I couldn't resolve while copy-editing:
    • "His father and younger siblings soon joined him after the two brothers' income was able to cover their expenses."—I can't get my head around what this means. They moved to Texas after Minton and his older brother were able to afford to pay their moving expenses? They joined the brothers at the meat packing plant? They just moved to Texas in general? Ambiguous.
    • "autumn"—do you have the month, for our southern-hemisphere readers? (I thought I remembered your being asked this above, but I can't see it now.)
    • "His opponent, incumbent Republican Senator Arthur R. Robinson, accused Minton of playing Santa Claus by trying to give everyone presents"—the Santa Claus / presents bit might be better off with a direct quotation, as the wording here feels too informal.
      • The source does not give a full quote, I can put "Santa Clause" and "presents" in quotes though, quoting the source. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Minton soon backtracked and explained his position again."—doesn't seem to make sense. He both recanted and reaffirmed his "You Cannot Eat the Constitution" stance?
  • More as and when I get a chance. Otherwise, nice work again. Best, Steve T • C 21:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He stopped using the phrase, but held to the principle espoused. I've tried to clear that up. Thank you for your efforts to improve the prose, I appreciate it! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I've struck those points above (though I have fresh ones below!) Steve T • C 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment from Steve T • C I'm quite happy with most of the prose now. I'm not saying the others won't be able to pick nits—they undoubtedly will!—but there shouldn't be anything major to overcome and I'll take another look myself before the end. I have a few more issues that were unresolvable during copy-editing, some prose-related, some content:
    • "Legal historians rank Minton among the Supreme Court's worst Justices, primarily because he almost always ruled in favor of order over freedom."—harsh words indeed, especially for such a prominent position at the head of a paragraph in the lead. I don't think this adequately summarises the "Death and legacy" section, which presents a far more balanced view, even if few of his positions had long term impact.
      • I've expanded on that just a bit and reordered things. I've balanced "worst justice" with a more sympathetic view. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Democratic Senator Edward R. Burke ... [accused] him of damaging the Democrat's cause, which led Minton to leave the Lobby Investigation Committee."—is this a misplaced apostrophe? The Democrat's (i.e. Minton's) cause, or Democrats' cause (that of the party)?
    • Two sections are named "Nomination and confirmation", which leads to navigation issues.
    • I wonder if everything from "Minton informed Eisenhower ..." in the "Regular dissenter" section would be more appropriate in "Retirement". Just a suggestion.
    • If I've a criticism about the article as a whole (rather than these resolvable nitpicks), it's that it is to a certain extent missing the man behind the career. It comes as a genuine surprise to read in "Regular dissenter", for example, that Minton was "gregarious, backslapping [and] popular among his colleagues". It's the first time we've come across this kind of description of Minton; we're only finding out about the personal this late in the article? (And as an aside, this looks especially odd after we're told that Minton did not enjoy his later time on the Court, and that he found himself with little support in many of his opinions.) I suppose it's unavoidable if this is all the sources cover about the man, but it is a shame.
      • The sources I have go into a little more information on his personal life than in is the article. He was essentially a friend to friends, and an enemy to his enemies; he had many of both. I have tried to include interesting events to explain this somewhat, explaining his extreme partisanship, his troubled youth, disdain for religion, close friendships with likeminded people like Truman and Earl Major, but complete dislike for people like Eisenhower and Hugo Black. The sources I have though are wrote by people who did not know him personally and their works are based mostly off his writings and personal letters, so their summations are largely caricatures rather than detailed personality descriptions. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's all the weather. Best, Steve T • C 13:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:39, 18 May 2010 [35].

1920–21 Burnley F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): BigDom 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I feel that after a Peer Review in which some image-related problems were found and addressed, it meets the FA criteria. If promoted, this would be the first Featured Article to fall under the scope of WP:SEASONS, and for some time now I have been working on this article for that purpose. Currently listed as a Good Article, it provides a comprehensive review of the season in which Burnley F.C. became champions of England for the first time in their long history, amassing a 30-game unbeaten streak along the way. If you want to find out more about this historic campaign, click the link and start reviewing! Cheers in advance for your comments, BigDom 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for checking, BigDom 11:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think this still needs some work on the prose front. It's certainly a lot better than many football articles, but there's still a bit of a tabloid feel about it, as in "with Bob Kelly netting four goals". A few more specific examples:
    • On 25 September 1920, Burnley won their third home match in a row with four different goalscorers netting in a 4–0 victory over Chelsea." Apart from that "netting" again, the sentence is slightly ambiguous because of the poor choice of "with" as a linking word. Does it mean the third home win in which four different goalscorers "netted", or that four different goalscorers had "netted" in each of the previous two games and this one?
    • "City were also challenging for the league title and eventually finished as runners-up, and several people were injured at the match as the stadium became overcrowded." What links these two ideas together (challenge for the title and injuries), that justifies them being in the same sentence?
    • "However, the team suffered their fifth league defeat of the campaign on 9 April 1921 ...". A personal dislike of mine; "team" cannot possibly be plural.
    • "... falling to a 0–2 away defeat at West Bromwich Albion." Can you "fall to" a defeat?
    • "Following the win over Leicester City, Burnley were handed a Second Round match ...". "Handed a match"?

Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article, I've had a go at addressing your comments:
  • Have changed the wording in the "On 25 September..." sentence
  • Split up the Manchester City sentence into two separate ones
  • Changed "their" to "its"
  • Taken out "falling to" and completely re-written the sentence
  • Agree that "handed a match" is fairly poor and have changed it accordingly
  • Removed all occurrences of "netted", "netting" etc.
If there's anything else you find, I'll gladly make some more improvements. Cheers, BigDom 19:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comments:
Citations
  • The Times ought to be italicised ({{cite news}} should be using the newspaper parameter instead of publisher).
  • All of The Times articles are in their digital archive, so urls would be good.
Background and pre-season
  • "No pre-season friendly matches were played." Is this saying that no team played pre-season friendlies, or just Burnley?
  • "Therefore, as the campaign began, the team had not played a match since 8 May 1920 ...". And how long ago was that?
League campaign
  • "When the league fixtures were released before the season, it was announced that Burnley's league campaign would start on 28 August 1920 ...". That reads really strangely. Surely it's obvious that the fixtures have to be released before the start of the season?
  • "... although the match did see eventual top scorer Joe Anderson notch the first of his 25 league goals of the campaign". I'm really not keen on "notching" goals.

Malleus Fatuorum 16:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits you've been doing. Here's my reply to your additional comments:
  • Changed the cite news templates
  • I didn't get the Times articles from the online archive so this one could take a very long time indeed but it's something to do tonight I suppose. ADDENDUM: Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Times online archives (I found the newspaper articles in the library) so will not be able to do this. I don't think it makes any difference since the newspaper pages still exist so they are still verifiable.
  • Clarified about pre-season friendlies
  • Added that it was almost four months since the team had played a match
  • Have removed the "before the start of the season" part of that sentence about fixtures
  • "notch" ---> "score"
Thanks again for taking a look at the article. BigDom 16:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I meant to mention this at the peer review and never got round to it, apologies for that. I think you'd be better referencing the details of the various matches (goal scorers, attendances etc) in the League campaign prose to your Burnley book, as you did originally, even if it is published by the club, at least for those matches where The Times didn't have a full match report. The Times articles cited all give the match score, but they don't always give the details that the citations appear to verify, which presumably your book source did. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have reinstated the citations that weren't fully covered by the newspaper articles. Seeing as most of the Times pieces are only used to cite scorelines, they're OK, but I've added references from the book for some of the goalscorer info, etc. BigDom 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Match results table isn't explicitly sourced. Presumably it should be, perhaps to the Soccerbase general reference for the scores and a book page for the scorers/attendances?
  • When that table is sourced, would it be allowable to remove from the League campaign section those refs that only verify the match score/scorers? making the prose less cluttered with superscripts and stopping the reader getting irritated by following up a reference only to find it's just a list of football scores :-) Or must they all be sourced individually?
  • Noticed the nominator doesn't have access to The Times digital archive. I've checked the first half-ish of Times references online & noted here in my sandbox one or two that don't on their own verify their sentence, suggested alternatives for a couple, & mentioned the occasional fact/quote from them that the nominator might not have noted himself & might be usable to add detail to some of the matches. Also page numbers. If the extra stuff's of any use, I'd be happy to go through the remainder, otherwise I'll just check the rest of the refs tomorrow. I'm afraid I can't work out how to supply urls that work outside my own session, they just lead to a login page... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a general reference for the table, to the page in the book that contains all results and scorers. The Soccerbase is a general ref, so that covers everything in the prose regarding match scores, just to avoid them being directly cited 40-odd times. Beacuse of this, and following on from your comment, I have removed the citations that only verified the match scores, etc.
That work you've done on The Times sources is great and much appreciated. Unfortunately, I was only able to retrieve those sources from a cursory glance at the library and I haven't got access to the online archives. If you don't mind going through the remainder of them, I will gladly continue what I've been doing this evening. I don't think you can provide URLs because they want people to pay in order to view the archives so like you, I just get taken to a login page. BigDom 19:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can confirm that The Times citations now verify their sentences, assuming the Simpson book provides general verification for scorelines, scorers' names and attendances. Not sure there's any real need to include newspaper sources just for the draw of FA Cup rounds: it's probably reasonable to assume that if they played Hull in a particular round then that's who they were drawn to play, but it does no harm. One exception: you need a source for it being "the first Charity Shield match to be contested between the league champions and the FA Cup winners". cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the references to the FA Cup draws, since I agree with your logic. Couldn't find a source to say it was the first Charity Shield match between the league champions and the Cup winners, so have cropped that sentence to simply say that they qualified for the Shield. Should be OK now, if you want to have one last check. BigDom 16:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So many sporting articles use copyrighted logos for decorations, the badge used during this period is (presumably) free, why is it not used? Fasach Nua (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm aware, the club did not use a badge at that time. The kit for the 1920–21 season certainly didn't have a badge on it, and the Burnley book I have gives no indication that they used a crest back then. BigDom 18:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The team photograph shows quite clearly that Burnley had no crest on their shirts for the 1920–21 season. The club didn't regularly have a crest on their kit until 1935. Until then they'd sometimes used the Royal Crest of the Prince of Wales, who'd visited the club in 1886. Malleus Fatuorum 18:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus, you're exactly right (as usual). BigDom 19:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I think this is just about as good as an article on this kind of topic can reasonably be expected to be. It won't be to everyone's taste, but it's encyclopedic and well written, and meets the FA criteria in my view. Malleus Fatuorum 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With the help of Struway2, I have now gone through all the references from The Times to ensure that they cite all the facts in their respective sentences. Also, I have taken out those references that simply confirmed a match score, since they were already covered by the table reference and the general Soccerbase ref. Hopefully, any problems with citations should now be fully sorted. BigDom 16:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Source reliability looks okay. Most of the sources consist of the Simpson book and articles from The Times. I was going to ask about Soccerbase, but when I went to look for an article here I saw that it has newspaper ties, so it figures to be all right. Looking forward to reading this one. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - meets FA criteria Dincher (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Why isn't there anything about this team's style of play or their strengths and weaknesses? What type of formation did they use? Did they attack in the air? Rely on counterattacks? Has there ever been a book written about this season in particular given that it was a recordbreaking team? Because there is not a lot in there apart from a proseform recitation of the scoreline. Is there any explanation about what caused the turnaround after the string of losses at the start of the season? Or likewise why they slumped at the end. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion but this is a simple one to answer—there isn't any discussion about tactics/strengths/weaknesses because none of the sources discuss them so if I did write anything about them, I would just be making it up. During that season, Burnley used the same formation as every other team in the world (1 goalkeeper, 5 defenders, 5 attackers) so maybe I could fit that into the Player Details section. Unfortunately, there hasn't been any books published about the team, record-breaking or not, so it appears that either nobody knows why they played so well and ended the season so poorly, or nobody is bothered. Hopefully, someone will write a book on them in the future, but I think that this article is as comprehensive as it can be, given the sources that currently exist. BigDom 06:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked in a main library in the city, eg a public state or university library? They usually stock older books although run of the mill local council ones tend to throw out books after 10 or 20 years and bring in new stuff. Cricket is the main sport in Australia and one can easily find a general history book on every era, that has 10-15 pages on every year at least. A pity if this isn't the case. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be bothered if information about the personal life or outside work of an army officer or sportsman could not be found, as it is rather peripheral, but in the case of a any (let alone a record-breaking one) sports team I would have to object under any circumstances as it is rather a core piece of information that is missing. It just wouldn't be allowed if Pele, Muhammad Ali, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great etc had their exploits written down but their tactics and abilities were not explained. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not if no-one knew about said tactics and abilities. It's not as if there are sources that BigDom has ignored; he seems to have mined everything available. If it's a genuine unknown, then we have to live with the fact that the article is as comprehensive as it can be. Assuming that's the case, would you consider striking your objection? Steve T • C 08:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I used the library to have a look at the sources from The Times, there wasn't anything in there and that library is in Burnley itself (although there was plenty of information about the team that won the championship in 1959–60). There's nothing in the WikiProject Football Booklist either. To be honest, in England I've never seen a book about the Football League in the 1920s or anything like what you describe about cricket. I know what you're saying about it arguably being a "core piece of information", but if there aren't any sources about it, then it can't be written about for verifiability reasons. BigDom 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience of researching football clubs in that era and earlier, local newspapers devoted a surprising amount of space to discussing the local football team, probably more than they do nowadays. Does the main library in Burnley really not have access to an archive of the major local paper? if not, the librarian would be able to tell you where to find one, they're normally very helpful. In addition to matters raised above, the local paper would supply a bit of background as to how the success was received in the town, etc. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose they would have an archive of the Burnley Express available. Now I just have to find the time to go there to go there and ask. I can't believe I didn't think of doing that when I was there before, you've made me feel a bit daft now. BigDom 08:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for 1a—quite well written. Can you enlarge the Turf Moor and team photo images? Actually, the Dawson image, at default, is kind of too big, given that it's an in-your-face portrait and has been poorly scanned. You could cut it to 200px? Tony (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having a read. I haven't forced the sizes of any of the images, but I will if you think it will improve the article. BigDom 16:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:39, 18 May 2010 [36].

Winter Olympic Games[edit]

Nominator(s): H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has percolating for over a year now and has received several excellent reviews. I feel it meets the FA Criteria and so I submit it to the scrutiny of this process. I am so close to the article that it is difficult for me to see its shortcomings, consequently if the article has not reached FA standards then I look forward to your remarks so that I can improve it for future FA consideration. Thank you. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: no dab links or dead external links. --Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in the Early years section I think the sentences "Finnish and Norwegian athletes dominated the events" and "Fluctuating weather conditions made these Olympics memorable." need changing to remove the words dominated and memorable which are somewhat subjective terms. Same in 2002 to present where dominated is used twice. - Basement12 (T.C) 08:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions. I've switched out the subjective language per your comments. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images looking good, could these be alternated left and right to balance the article (as far as possible). Could File:Flag of Chinese Taipei for Olympic games.svg be reviewed to see if it a free image or a derived work of a non-free image, and thus in itself non free Fasach Nua (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly alternate the images to give a bit of balance to the look of the article. Regarding the Chinese Taipei flag, I'm not an image expert and so I will look for a facsimile that is free-use, if not I will delete. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but images under third level headings are to be right aligned. I can't find the actual provision about this but I'm pretty sure that is the case. So the one image that is under a second level heading has been moved to the left but the rest of the images are under third level headings and so I'll leave them right aligned. If anyone out there has another insight on this I'll happily listen and make adjustments. Regarding the Chinese Taipei flag, I see that it is released to the Public Domain but there is a tag about it being a national insignia and so may carry restrictions independent of copyright law. I cannot find a substitute that would not carry this tag. The image is not vital to the article and so if it would be deemed inappropriate to have it in the article I will delete it. In the meantime I will look for a substitute. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
    • "The Winter Olympic Games is a winter multi-sport event held every four years. It consists of winter sports such as alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, and ice hockey that are held on snow or ice. These sports along with Nordic combined, ski jumping, and speed skating have been part of every Winter Olympics since 1924"
      • I feel like it's awkward to split the events into two separate sentences. Additionally, I believe there could be a better opening sentence. Have you considered something like:
        • "The Winter Olympic Games is a winter multi-sport event held every four years, first done so in 1924. Consisting of winter sports, the games have included alpine skiing, cross-country skiing, figure skating, Nordic combined, ski jumping, and speed skating since the first games."
      • I just felt like you could combine sentences to make more interesting ones. The rest of the lede is fine. One question, though: should the opening sentence be "The Winter Olympic Games is" or are? I notice the parent article of Olympic Games has are, although includes both Winter and Summer. For what it's worth, a Google search on "Olympics games are" has more hits than "Olympic games is". Just something that stood out, since the rest of the lede uses "Games" as plural.
    • "The Tyrolean city of Innsbruck was the host in 1964" - I think it'd be safer to say "The Austrian city", since I'm sure many have never heard of Tyrol.
    • Is there any other history that can be included in the "history" section that isn't just a recap of each Olympic game?
      • The tricky part about the "history" section is that I really had to walk the summary tight rope. I received criticism during the peer review process that the history section was overdone and needed to be trimmed. If you have something that you feel is missing I'd be happy to add it. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do the colors in the map at the top of "list of games" section mean? I see it in the image summary, but it should be seen somewhere in the article.
    • A ref is needed for the dates in the "List of Games" table for the 2014 and 2018 games.
  • All in all, a good read. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, I wanted to say something about the plural/singular issue. This is something I've struggled with mightily. The issue is that whether you refer to the a singular Games like the 1948 Winter Games or the Winter Olympic Games in general the "Games" is/are always plural. This makes for some awkward wording at times. I'll go back through and make sure that references to the Winter Olympic Games have plural agreement. I've made the suggested fixes to the article. Thanks again for reviewing it. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • The Winter and Summer Games resumed in 1948 and were held in the same year until 1992. Starting in 1994 each Winter Olympics has been held in its own year, separate from the Summer Games. The Winter Olympics continue to be celebrated every four years. > needs some tweaking. The sentence should come right and state that between 1948 and 1992 the Winter Games were held every four years on the same year as the Summer Games, but that the schedule was staggered beginning in 1994, so that Winter Games and Summer Games are held on alternate two year cycles (this is hard to word, I know).
  • The organizers opposed this idea; their reasoning was two-fold: they desired to protect the integrity of the Nordic Games, and they were concerned about a lack of facilities for winter sports. > bumpy punctuation (maybe the clause between the semi-colon and the colon can be replace with "because" to simplify
  • A few repetitive occurrences of "these games"

A nice summary that spans a century of winter sports, that's easy to read. Looks very well done. Will finish reading and return with comments. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your suggestions and I've made some fixes. The description of the split of the winter/summer Games is very tricky and I have yet to find a very clean way to explain it. At any rate, I hope I've made it better. Thanks. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Cold War section: This sort of political intrusion in a sports federation was unheard of in a democratic country. > unprecedented? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice article. Happy to support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why isn't there a separate section/table with the most prolific medallists? 18.74.5.93 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, that's a good question, my thinking though is that I don't want to duplicate what may be in the History section. For example there is a reference to Bjørn Dæhlie who is the most decorated Winter Olympics athlete. There has been debate though as to whether it is productive to make a list of most prolific medallists since each sport is very different and the opportunities to win large numbers of medals differ from sport to sport. For example in Speed Skating and Cross-Country skiing athletes can win 4 or 5 medals in an Olympics, whereas figure skaters can win only one. I could put List of multiple Olympic medalists in the See also section. I think that might be a good addition. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I just noticed that there is a list, List of multiple Winter Olympic medalists, that seems even better and more specific than the one I was going to propose. I hope this addresses your question. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 21:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about including some table like Lists_of_Olympic_medalists#Winter_Olympic_sports? (or maybe Lists_of_Olympic_medalists#Winter_Olympic_Games). This first should fix the issue of some sports having more medals to be won. 18.101.16.181 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added Lists of Olympic medalists to the See also section. Will this suffice? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 17:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • Why is [37] a reliable source?
  • In the bibliography the page number in the Guttman book is redundant
  • The year is missing for the Kluge book

Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review of the sources, I've made the fixes, to the Guttman and Kluge books. Regarding the sports-reference source, are you concerned about this specific site (1924 Winter Olympics) or the sports-reference website as a whole? Here is a page with a couple of links to the site's credentials: [38]. The site is used in the 1956 Winter Olympics and Olympic Games articles, both of which are featured. If you are concerned about the 1924 site specifically could you please outline what may be unreliable? Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may add a brief comment here, Sports Reference is the parent company of several sites that have come up at FAC before, including Baseball-Reference, Pro Football Reference, and Basketball-Reference. This page has the relevant FACs, which contain reasons why they were accepted at the time (I actually defended one of the sites at an FAC). For what it's worth, this says the site's data comes from research by Olympic historians. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on Sports Reference. It is a valuable site and has great information that is easily accessible. I appreciate the insight about its use in other sports-related articles. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sports Ref is reliable per Giants. On the info page it is very explicit that the eds, eg Wallechinsky among others have been heads of an Olympic history society and so forth. Wallechinsky himself has written many books including a results book, but obviously there isn't enough space in there except to write down the top 8 or 10 etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read through the history section, and it looks mostly good; just a few little issues that I detail below:

  • Early years: "The organizers opposed this idea because they desired to protect the integrity of the Nordic Games; and they were concerned about a lack of facilities for winter sports." The semi-colon should probably be a comma here.
  • World War II: Remove comma after Germisch-Partenkirchen.
  • "The 1944 Winter Olympics...was cancelled...". Should "was" be "were", for tense purposes?
  • 1948 to 1960: "The Olympic flag presented at the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp was stolen, and its replacement was stolen." Repetition here. How about "was stolen, as was its replacement" as a less redundant alternative.
  • A couple of these city links are repeating unnecessarily in subsequent sections. Just something small to watch for.
  • 1984 to 1998: "Women's ice hockey made its debut and the United States winning the gold medal." "winning" → something else.
  • 2002 to present: Are the medal records set by Canada and the U.S. in this Olympics worthy of note? To me, that seems at least as notable as how poorly Russia did. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review of the history section. I made the fixes you suggested. I can add a note about Canadian and American success at the 2010 Games. I received feedback in one of the article's peer reviews that this portion was very North American-centric and especially Canadian-centric (if that makes sense). But I do think that if I'm going to leave in something about a country's poor performance I should have great performances in there as well. So I'll add a bit. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object needs some more work on the content. On a side note I always wonder why outsiders never have a go question content; I think it's the weakest part of FAs as most people are hobbyists. Some things missing in content.
    • In the big history/list of results Koss the Boss is missing. Very big star in 1994. Generally the things get bigger year by year but maybe the later years have undue weight?
    • Undue weight on hockey? Maybe some people see it as the "showpiece" but perhaps others would say figureskating or some alpine event
    • Undue of Sale/Pelletier? Yes it was a scandal but there are many in the artistic competitions, and also a lot in short track eg Apolo Ohno and DQed Korean in 2002.
    • General trends are also missed in the bit thicket of sports results. I just had a look at the data but before the 1990s PRC/KOR/JPN basically won nothing but now they are strong countries. Australia is now also doing well in some places. The Rise of Asia isn't mentioned anywhere
      • Trend of "modernising" sports isn't discussed. Just a list of sports, nothing about the impetus to introduce "cool" and "extreme" sports eg halfpipe, snowboardcross, skicross etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re controversies, with major things eg Olympics, Football World Cup etc, there is always discussion about whether the infrastructure investment is worth it, the "legacy" for teh host country etc, whether it develops grassroots participation, facilities for kids etc. That is missing here. There may be also criticism that too many of the seats are reserved for corporates or rich people at 5,000 each, and not enough in the public raffle, if the same thing happens as at Summer Games YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the assessment, being so close to the content it's hard to know what is missing and what is out of balance. I'll start to work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 12:52, 18 May 2010 [39].

Recopa Sudamericana[edit]

Nominator(s): Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, simply, there is nothing more to add. The Recopa Sudamericana is a highly regarded competition in South America so importance is not lacking. I believe that the page meets ALL requirements to become a featured article; every piece of information is cited as appropriate, neutral, and informative as well as eye-friendly for readers and that goes for its subsections as well. Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest withdraw: No inline citations, and only one "general" reference from this website. Have you actually read the FA criteria? References are sort of a big deal. Lo siento. María (habla conmigo) 12:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - One general citation is not enough when Google News alone brings up over 3,000 results for this topic. Pyrrhus16 12:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert reviewer comments or re-open a closed nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:18, 17 May 2010 [40].

Days of our Lives[edit]

Nominator(s): Sami50421 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the criteria. I have done numerous amounts of edit's on the article. It's a very good, well-written article. It covers the topics, and is broadened in different views. User:Sami50421 Sami50421 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose of the four pieces of non-free content, not one of them has a plausible FU rationale Fasach Nua (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggest withdrawal. Hi. This seems like a decent article, and for the most part it isn't badly written. However, I do feel that this nomination is premature. It's only just become a Good Article, and even with that I think a different GA reviewer would have balked at the numerous uncited statements, paragraphs and even sections. In addition, did you consult the major contributors to the article before nominating? This is a solid foundation, but not yet close to what should be considered for FA; the article's frailties would soon be exposed under this review process' harsher light. If you're serious about making this article the best it can be (and I have no reason to doubt that, given your contributions so far), perhaps Peer Review would be the best next step. Steve T • C 22:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Notice removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:53, 16 May 2010 [41].

The Kingdom of this World[edit]

Nominator(s): Svetlana 365, User:Avneet86, User:Patrussell, Chris Weber (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. Such an important work in Latin American literature deserves to be introduced to a wider audience. Chris Weber (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was only passed GA today. Was User:Svetlana 365 consulted about the nomination? Has User:Jbmurray reviewed the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Svetlana 365 was indeed consulted. We worked on this article as a four-person group, and all members were consulted before nominating. I would expect Jbmurray has already reviewed the article considering we did this as a project for a university course whose grades are due in this weekend, but I cannot confirm if he has.--Chris Weber (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should all four be listed as co-noms? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense. How exactly do we do that? --Chris Weber (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By listing them above. I just did it for you. Ucucha 01:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! --Chris Weber (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 23:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: generally, the article uses "Ti Noel", but occasionally, Ti Noël -- make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No valid FU rationale for File:The_Kingdom_of_this_World_Eng_1st_Ed.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added an extra bit of information that should make the reason for use explicit: "Significant edition cover that illustrates subject of article. Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image. The image is used as the primary means of visual identification of this article topic." Is that enough? It seems to be OK for other FA articles. --Chris Weber (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources: All sources look OK, no issues here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have not finished reading the article, but based on the current state of the prose and organization, I have to oppose. Once the major problem with the "Theatre" section is fixed, I will finish reading the article.

  • Once in Cuba, Carpentier joined a group of young writers whose goal was to establish a literature faithful to the New World, by recovering origins, history, and tradition. - Unclear - "origins, history, and tradition" is too vague
  • In 1943, he travelled to Haiti,[4] where he was made aware of Dominique Hyppolyte's play, Le Torrent, about the Haitian Revolution, which features a character named Ti Noel. - How was he made aware?
  • As The Kingdom of This World coincides with Carpentier's return to Cuba, it is very much influenced by the author's re-encounter with himself and his origins - What does "re-encounter with himself" mean?
  • This revolution was a turning point in global history because it was unthinkable and therefore challenged the prejudices of its time. - Doesn't quite make sense, as the people who revolted thought it and did it!
  • The Haitian revolution differed from the American revolution however, as it involved the formation of a new national identity. - This seems wrong - the American revolution prompted the invention of an American identity as well.
  • All names of literary works should be linked - redlinked, if the articles don't yet exist.
  • The second paragraph of "Setting" seems to be more about "Genre" - is there a better place for it?
  • Jean Price Mars's Ainsi parla l'oncle (So Spoke the Uncle) presents two arguments that Carpentier applied to his historical approach: firstly, from the perspective of a Haitian peasant, the Revolution did nothing more than replace leaders, since the exploitation continued; secondly, Price Mars assumes the authenticity of the belief in African gods, in contrast with a shallow Catholicism. - This sentence doesn't make sense.
  • William Seabrook's The Magic Island made connections between religion and history and was considered a beautiful book by Carpentier - What kinds of connections influenced Carpentier?
  • Cervantes' influence on Carpentier is unclear. Perhaps move the last sentence in the paragraph to the beginning and start there?
  • In order to achieve such an analysis, Carpentier makes use of spectatorship: his characters perceive a spectacle in alterable ways which parallel their alterable ways of experiencing the world. - This sentence doesn't make sense - average readers aren't going to understand the layers of meaning that scholars attribute to the word "spectatorship" - this must all be explained much better.
  • Spectacle situations are also sometimes used by Carpentier as a tool for the characters to reframe and rethink the world,[15] as well as to establish individual and group identity. - It is not clear what "spectacle situations" are.
  • As a second example, the scene that Ti Noel constructs around himself after the sacking of the Sans-Souci Palace presents the reader with a dramatic rehearsal in which Ti Noel represents culturally mobile subjectivity by performing different identities on his own. - This is not going to be clear to a general reader.
  • The "Theatre" section follows the language of its sources closely in a way that makes it difficult for a lay reader to understand the concepts being presented (they will not know about spectator theory). You need to distill the article down into its essence and present that to the reader - that will be quite difficult as it is a very hard article to understand. Repeating the words and phrases in the article will not make the ideas clear to a general readers.

Once the "Theatre" section (which should relabeled "Performance") has been rewritten, I would be glad to continue my review, but that will take a substantial bit of work. I'll wait to finish the review until that is done. I'll check back here on Sunday. If you want me to check back before then, please email me. Awadewit (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not yet. The Haitian revolution differed from the American revolution however, as it involved the formation of a new national identity I think I see what sort of thing is intended here; but the present text implies that the American Revolution did not involve the formation of a new national identity - which is patently false. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAC has been up for more than two weeks, with no support. Please resolve remaining concerns with reviewers, and bring back in a few weeks. (Where is Jbmurray?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:14, 16 May 2010 [42].

Harry Potter[edit]

Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 02:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked hard on it and have read previous peer reviews and the most recent FAC. Happy reviewing! Guy546(Talk) 02:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments A quick look around finds:

  • References: several dead links; outdated and missing retrieved on dates.
  • Alt text could be more descriptive of the images. Some images missing captions.
  • Overlinking in article. How many links do we need to Bloomsbury, Scholastic, and each book and or movie?
  • Series needs disambiguating. --Brad (talk) 04:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Were the top contributors to the article consulted before this nomination? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Yes, but alot of the major editors haven't edited for a while, so I only updated a few.Guy546(Talk) 05:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The top contributor Serendipodous (talk · contribs) just made some edits today. I don't see any notification on their talk page. --Brad (talk) 10:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Media

Fasach Nua (talk) 06:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guy546, please stop doing this: FAC processes have been explained to you before. If you want to bring an article to FAC, please develop one through peer review or possibly GA and consult and work with the primary contributors. I will remove this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Object: Exactly the same things that stopped this article's last nomination are still wrong with it. The Themes section needs to be expanded, scholarly sources need to be found to give some idea of the subtexts and meanings in the work. Someone needs to troll Google Scholar for references to give this piece some scholarly heft. I'd be willing if someone else were willing to collaborate. Serendipodous 16:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 14 May 2010 [43].

Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini[edit]

Nominator(s): Mootros (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I suspect the article may meet the required criteria. I look forward to hear your comments. Many thanks. Yours, Mootros (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed by adding relevant new source. Mootros (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted Tschild about this FA. I had also tried to contact the user about the previous GA in March, but there was not response despite other ongoing contributions by Tschild. Mootros (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is an interesting article. The story is well told, the wikilinks are useful and not overly abundant, and the references are nicely formatted. The prose, however, is not quite polished; it needs a fair amount of copyediting to fix grammar and punctuation problems. I would be happy to help with this, but my time here will be quite limited over the next two weeks. A post at the talk page of the relevant wikiprojects might garner a faster response. Maralia (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll place a request at the talkpage of the crime project. Mootros (talk) 08:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Images are all good with valid licenses
    • The chronology is not maintained in the lead. The sentencing part should come after the discussion of the trial.
    • "She was stabbed by a man against whom she had testified in..." Name of the murderer is needed in the lead. Noting the German ethnicity of the man is also important as ethnicity also may be a reason of anti-German protests
    • "German government issued a statement more than a week after the incident had happened." is too ambiguous. What kind of statement? criticizing the man, sympathizing with the victim? What?
    • The article is "Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini", not Marwa El-Sherbini. So the title "Early Life" becomes ambiguous. The victim's or the man's early life? Think of an appropriate title
    • Is his name officially "Alexander Wiens" (used by the unformatted news link in Note 1) or "Alex Wiens"?
    • So far what I can see German authorities refer to him as Alex Wiens. Someone mentioned that Russian news papers called him Alexander. It's not entirely clear and I speculated he was named Alexander but when for official purposes had his name transliterated in Germany he put down Alex. Hence the fact the court calls him like this. I have seen any source about. Mootros (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Inconsistency in Verbal abuse and court case for defamation in using the Euro sign and spelling

--Redtigerxyz Talk 15:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Review by Charles Edward

Hello! This is an interesting article to read. I am not previously familiar with the topic, and do have a few comments and questions.

General
    • "Following anti-German sentiments and public protests in Egypt and other countries, the German government issued a statement more than a week after the incident had happened." ... saying what? Please consider rephrasing, this does not flow particularly well.
    • "Academic commentators later described this as an example of mass media miscommunication between cultures." which commentators? This does not really make any sense to me, "mass media miscommuinication between cultures" Maybe more clearly explain what is meant. This is also not discussed in the body.
    • See last section. Removed from lead, because it's misleading with the German government statement there. Mootros (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The subsequent trial for murder and attempted murder occurred under strict security measures and was observed by national and international media, diplomats and legal experts." what was verdict was (that should be in the lead for sure)?
    • The lead should include more information: who was her killer? What was his motivation? How was he apprehended? Point out it was her husband who was also wounded, not just "another person", explain how he was apprehended.
    • Did the murder have a lawyer at the trial for the original swing incident or was the arguments his own?
    • This is not known. The source states "he claimed". I guess he had a lawyer as this is required I think, but he himself just said this. I'm speculating. I'll look into the requirements for representation in district courts in Germany, but it will not tell us what happened there unless we find the court record. Mootros (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I understand here [44], it was probably not required to have representation. I don't think Wiens had a lawyer has he was on benefits and granted a public defender for the appeal case. But there is not source yet... Mootros (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "After El-Sherbini had testified, Wiens tried to ask additional questions about her right to be in Germany, but was overruled." - was she a legal resident of the country? This deserves an answer here, since it is an allegation. At least explain why the judge overruled.
    • Done, completely rewritten. I guess the question ["why there at all] was too generic, arguably in conflict with Informational_self-determination kind of right to privacy, but it's not known how the judge reasoned Mootros (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says the husband was stabbed in the head sixteen times, and then nothing more. Was he hospitalized? Were his wounds severe? It also speaks of the child being injured, but gives no details on the nature of the injury.
    • See end of section. Nothing know about the child. Mootros (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Continuing with noncompliant and destructive behaviour, he was temporarily restrained by up to nine security officers." So was it nine offices that restrained him temporarily, or nine officers at different times that restrained him, or up to nine but the exact number is not known? I suggest a rephrase here to be more clear.
    • "It meant that Wiens received the maximum sentence for this crime.", I suggest integrating this with the sentence about his sentencing. (lol! thats an interesting pun)
  • In the lead, the the event is called a hate crime, but it is not called a hate crime or discussed in this context in the body.
    • Done. I.e. discrimination on grounds of race. Mootros (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am still a a little torn on the use of this term based on whats been presented. Maybe another reviewer will weigh in with an opinion. To call something a crime indicates a law was broken. So there would have to be hate crimes laws in place in Germany for this to have been a hate crime, in a legal sense, which I think is how most people would interpret the use of the term hate crime. But from what I understand, he was convicted only of "heinous murder". So.. I think it is important to make that clarification in the article, that while his crime would be a "hate crime" in some nations, it was not in the legal sense of Germany a hate crime. Perhaps rephrasing to a "crime committed out of hate". Personally, the more specific the better I think, so maybe even "a crime committed because of his hate for Muslims" or "non-Germans" or whatever the most specific cause was. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at this again. Yes that is a valid point you have raised. I have changed this now accordingly. Mootros (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query: Are there hate crime statutes in Germany, or is this just a phrase being employed? Was he actually convicted of a "hate crime" or just murder? The article only says murder, so in that context, hate crime may be an inappropriate here. Likewise, there is some indication the man was mentally unstable, in which case the crime more likely occurred because of his lunacy. Just be sure the correct terms, as are being employed by the sources, are used in the article. I detect a little ambiguity right now regarding the terms. (I can't read German or I would read the sources myself!)
    • No hate crime but murder with the formal qualification "heinous" (Besondere Schwere der Schuld) Mootros (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "On 11 November 2009, Wiens was found guilty of the murder of El-Sherbini and the attempted murder of Okaz, and sentenced to life imprisonment." - in the notes it is pointed out a life sentence tends to be 18-25 years in Germany. It might be worth saying this inline.
    • I've expanded note 6. A life life sentence is for life, but time could spent outside prison with certain obligation and under certain conditions. Mootros (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
    • "Other noteworthy characteristics of this murder...", this is not really in an encyclopedic tone; instead the article should pointedly state the noteworthy facs, rather than have to point it out directly. If they were not noteworthy, then they would not be in the article. I would take "Other noteworthy" off the lead of the sentence. Check out WP:TONE and WP:EDITORIAL
    • The lead treats the incident in a very abstract way. Example, "...the criminal offence was committed in front of a child, while also attacking another person who tried to intervene." Perhaps be more clear "...Alex Wiens murdered El-Sherbini in front of her child and then attacked and wounded her husband as he attempted to intervene." Crimes don't commit themselves, don't be afraid to point to the perpetrator and use names. Likewise, the fact that it was her child and husband are important to know.
    • Done? 23:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • There are several uses of "in addition to" and "also"; these can mostly be removed.
    • Done.22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
    • "In Egypt, there was considerable public and media attention on the hate crime aspect of the offence.", poor grammar, try to rephrase. maybe "The Egyptian public and media focused attention on the hate crime."
    • "She was stabbed by a man against whom she had testified in a criminal case for verbal abuse about wearing an Islamic headscarf." - was the case about verbal abuse, or was it about wearing a head scarf? Or was the verbal abuse about the headscarf? I suggest a rephrase here for clarity's sake.
    • The prose of the lead is atrocious. I suggest a total rewrite, focus on removing vagaries and being specific, including more key elements of the article, and only including information which is within the body.
    • "On 21 August 2008, he shouted abuse at El-Sherbini...", he shouted the word "abuse"? (of course not) maybe be more specific here. Its more common to use the term "verbal abuse" in this context as well.
    • "...in a quarrel over the use of a swing by his niece and El-Sherbini's son." Perhaps this should come before the other information. I suggest explaining how the two met, at the playground, then how the quarrel arose, then the abuse that occurred. It reads a bit backwards now, with the climax coming first, more like a news story.
    • Very good point. Well spotted -- I now think that there should be a short section about Wiens similar to El-Sherbini's. Mootros (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, changed narrative and added new section. Mootros (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It talks alot about what he said to her.. but what did she say or do to him in the original incident? Its a little unusual (unless the man was deranged) to go on a verbal attack spree because his kid didn't get his fair share of time on a swing.
    • Done. From my reading, once the insults started during the quarrel, she was talking to bystanders trying to get a mobile phone and than on the phone to the police. I've now expanded this section with all this. Mootros (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...Wiens was trailed by the district court." maybe instead "trialed". That is not the best term here though. Maybe "was put on trial".
    • Trialled by the court is rather formal in BE whereas put on trial not, I say. Mootros (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Okaz, widower of El-Sherbini, testified" - we already know he is her widower, that can be removed
    • "The fact that El-Sherbini's husband..." Rephrase so you don't have to say "The fact", avoid editorializing.
    • There are many other places the prose can be improved. I suggest a good copy edit throughout. This is what is really holding the article back at this point.
Citations needed
    • "Prosecutors cited perfidiousness and malice (based on hatred against non-Europeans and Muslims) as qualifying characteristics for the murder charge."
    • "...because when he entered the room "Elwy Okaz and Alex Wiens were both covered in blood and Elwy Okaz had just managed to grab the handle of the knife with his hand, making it appear as though he was the attacker"."
References
    • Ref #7-d, 33, 50, 51 are not following punctuation points
    • I am not entirely sure what you mean. Mootros (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citations should not appear mid sentance, unless following a comma or semicolen. They should only come after punctuations points. Check out Wikipedia:Cite#Summary for a detailed explanation of that guideline. There are occasions when exceptions to that rule are allowable, but it is not common.
    • Note #1 has a link that is not formatted. ( it needs accessdate, title, publisher?)
    • This is a persistent problem. We found that this is technically not possible to insert this in the conventional way. I'll try to think of an alternative. :) Mootros (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't speak German, but most of the reference (appear to me) to not include an author. Please make sure that the author information is being employed as it is available
    • Not being familiar with German, I can't speak to the reliability of all the sources, but some I am familiar with, like Der Spiegel. For the most part, the sources appear reliable to me.
  • Images
    • Is it possible to get an image of either the victim, murderer, or both? Those would add tremendous value to the article.
    • Yes, I agree. 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
    • All images check out, pd, etc.
  • Oppose for now I have to oppose. There are some minor MOS issues, the big issue for me is the prose. Its very rough in places, particularly the lead, and there is awkward phrasing throughout. If you can address these issues I'd be glad to make a second reading and reconsider. Great job so far with this article, I can see you've put alot of time into it and it is a very thought-provoking and disturbing topic. Keep up the good work and it will be of FA quality soon enough! :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 19:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly for your detailed comments and feedback! I'll see how much I can turn this around within this candidature. Mootros (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I see you have done a good job addressing many of my specific concerns. I still find the prose to be a little rough in places. If I have time before the review closes I will try to copy edit it for you. I encourage you to reach out to other editors to give you hand in copyeditting. Here is a good place to start: WP:COPYEDITORS. I still think it is short of prose standards needed to pass this review. I find copy editting to be the hardest part of writing a featured article, but take heart, sometimes it just takes a couple attempts to get there. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 21:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I share Charles Edward's view of the prose, which is rather awkward in many places. I'm afraid I think that the article needs a serious amount of rewriting.
    • Thank you for your feedback. You mean copy editing rather than rewriting, do you? Mootros (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I mean that I think most sentences need to be rewritten. You may call that copyediting if you please. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples:

    • "He declared that German people should not mingle with foreigners, and his voting intention for the far right National Democratic Party of Germany." Does that mean he declared his intention to vote for the NDP?
    • "After El-Sherbini had testified, the judge asked whether there are further questions." Are further questions?
    • "... in such a forceful and sudden manner that resulted in an absence of defensive injuries."
    • "Wiens' defence counsel tried to help El-Sherbini by obstructing Wiens with chairs and a table. Her three-year-old son was injured while being ushered to safety." Whose son are we talking about here? The defence counsel's?
    • "... the judge who had presided the trial on 1 July 2009". Presided over?
    • "On the beginning of the third day of the trial ...". At the beginnning?
Done. Mootros (talk) 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Closing arguments were held on 9 and 10 November 2009." Closing arguments were heard?
    • "... Wiens injured himself in a fit of rage by throwing his head against a table." So he has a detachable head?
    • "... because the offence was accomplished in front of the child". Offences aren't accomplished, they're carried out.
    • "In line with common practice regarding reporting in the German media about crime and legal proceedings, El-Sherbini referred to as "32[sic]-year old" witness in a Deutschlandfunk report for Tagesschau on 1 July." Are there a couple of words missing here? Was referred to as ...?

Malleus Fatuorum 13:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Almost three weeks, no support. Please take a few weeks, work on issues raised, make sure previous opposers are satisfied, and come back with a fresh start in a few weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 17:10, 14 May 2010 [45].

Royal National College for the Blind[edit]

Nominator(s): Paul Largo (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt at nominating this for FAC. It was nominated a few weeks ago, but not promoted due to several source issues at the time. It was suggested that I should deal with these then have another go. All but one of the sources listed have now either been validated (I believe) or replaced with others (See here for further details). The only one outstanding is from a magazine of several years standing which is highly regarded in its industry, but which appears to be less well known on the web. This can, however, be removed if objections are raised. Other than that the article is well referenced, of reasonable length, covers the subject comprehensively, has been stable for a number of years, and reads well. Paul Largo (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No dab links; external links working. Ucucha 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Interesting article that I think could use some expanding. Some comments and suggestions:

  • The Lead should be expanded a bit with a mind towards relative weight. It glosses over the history and assistive technology, says nothing about the restructuring, academics, or extracurriculars. It should better summarize the article as a whole.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some parts will be confusing for US readers. What is a registered charity and is that unusual for a UK school? What is a patron? Brief explanations of OFSTED, GCSE, AS and A level will also help those unfamiliar with British education.
  • I would remove the Ethos section entirely. It seems like fluff. With no discussion of its development or distinctiveness, it detracts from the rest of the article. Most school articles omit them for that reason.

  • "With donations of £3,000 and the support of the nobility..." Which nobility exactly?

  • "...the word "Normal" being an American expression referring to the training offered by the college." "Normal School" refers to a teachers' college in the US. Did RNC train teachers?
  • You could expand a bit on the Relocation section. Details of the locations? Fuller reasons behind each move?

* You should also expand the Assistive technology section more than a bit. It seems to be one of the more interesting and important contributions of the school. Can you say more, for example, about the T3? How it was developed? What role the school played? What about the other devices?

  • It seems a shame there is only the one image. Are there images of the founder? Any students? The devices? What about some of the Blind Art or sports?
  • The notable supporters seem out of place here. They seem only peripherally connected to the school. Notable people suggests those who worked or went there. Perhaps there is more to say about the alumni you mention and how the school impacted their later careers?
  • The fair use logo rationale is valid but not quite right. Look at WP:FURG.

* Is there a citation for Dr Colin Housby-Smith?

Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the suggestions. Some good ideas here and I should be able to deal with most of the issues you've raised. The only thing which might be a problem is the Relocation section as available information on this period of the college's history is a bit patchy, but I'll see what I can find. Getting more pictures might also present a problem. I have made enquiries about this, but sadly without luck. Also, just wondered if you could expand on a couple of things for me;

  • With regard to the alumni and how the college impacted on their later lives, could you be a bit more specific on the sort of information you're looking for? Do you mean the careers they followed, their achievements and that sort of thing?
  • With regard to explaining the qualifications, is there an article I could look at for comparison so I can see the sort of thing that is required?

Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

A few changes I have made to this;

  • Lede - Lede now expanded, but needs a little more work.
  • Ethos - Section now removed.
  • Nobility - It's really the British nobility although the Perkins Institute website (confusingly) refers to the English Nobility. In any case I've been more specific. I might move some of the information from Patrons and Supporters to this part so I can clarify which members of the nobility - i.e., the Royal Family and several prominent politicians of the day.
  • Asssistive technology - Expanded information in this section on the T3 and will add more on some of the other devices. The colleg's website has some quite interesting information so I might use some of this.
  • Registered charity - Have changed this to say the college is a charitable organisation registered with the Charity Commission (which is basically what a registered charity is). Generally most schools and colleges in the United Kingdom are state funded. RNC receives state funding as well, but I think it probably began life as a charitable organisation as education in Victorian Britain (particularly for blind people) was less comprehensive than it is these days. I'll see if I can find anything that talks about education funding in the UK and try to incorporate it into the article somehow.
  • GCSE/A-Level - For those outside the UK or other countries that have a UK-style education system, these are qualifications taken during secondary education (GCSE at 16 and A-Level at 18, although anyone at any age can study for them and lots of people do so). The U.S. equivalent for an A-Level is probably High school graduation examination.
  • Normal college - The history page of the college's website makes reference to teacher training, and there are other passing references to this in other articles, but I have found nothing that expands on this. I'll keep looking though.
  • Patron - A patron is a celebrity or public figure who is willing to become a figurehead for a particular charity or cause. Not sure how to factor this in yet or whether a good reference is available. Interestingly Prince Charles is Patron of about 400 charities.

I'll keep working on the article and update this list as and when appropriate. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Assistive technology - Section now expandedto include more information on technology developed at the college.
  • Dr Colin Housby-Smith - Ref now supplied.
  • Lede - Now includes more information about what appears in the article.

Still need to work on the Notable people and alumni section. Will take out some information and try to make it flow better. Would like to start patron inro with something like "Charities often appoint a notable individual as a patron who can help to raise the organisation's profile. RNC's patron is Charles, Prince of Wales, a position he has held since 1997." This would explain patron nicely, but I'm not sure whether I'd need to reference the first statement. That could prove difficult. Paul Largo (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notable upporters - Have trimmed this section, knocking out some people and keeping the most important ones.
  • Relocation - expanded and added a few more minor detail.
  • Nobility - Added some of the nobility who were involved at the time of the college's founding.
  • GCSE/A-Level - now in full.

Paul Largo (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Logo - I've now updated this but would be grateful if someone would take a look at it for me. It seems to be repeating one or two things in the infobox. Cheers
I edited the fair-use template to use the default text, which should clear it up so far as a fair-use logo goes. There is still the open question of originality as a text logo noted below. Hopefully an opinion from MCQ will be forthcoming.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting out the fair-use rationale. I think I've probably done all I can with this article for now. Apart from the College's site itself this is probably now the most comprehensive source of information about RNC on the web. I would liek to have been able to have expanded the Relocation section a bit more than I have done, but seem to have found all the information that's presently available on it. If this doesn't pass FAC this time I'll have to leave it for a while. I'll make some more enquiries about getting a few more images and hopefully when the World Blind Football Championships take place later in the year more information about the college will be available in the media - perhaps even a more in-depth history. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Overlinked.

  • Opening: a forest of unnecessary links: "co-educational", "English" ... "residential" is cryptic for the reader, so if you want a link to "residential college" (which probably deals with the "further education" bit too), perhaps later in the article, unpiped? Is "blind" necessary when "partially sighted" occurs straight after? WP is not a dictionary. "London" doesn't need to be linked. "Colonel" and "British Army" are not necessary links, and "Home Secretary" is a chain link from "David Blunkett" straight after. Cleansing would focus readers on the high-value links.
  • "philanthropist": please remove this dictionary term to avoid the bunching of three links together (see WP:LINK). "US", nope. Tony (talk) 08:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response
  • Links now hopefully dealt with. Article now opens "The Royal National College for the Blind (RNC) is a co-educational residential college of further education based in the English city of Hereford." Other suggested unlinking now complete. Let me know if this is ok or if I need to tweak it some more.
  • De-linked partially sighted as it is a redirect page to Visual impairment and have linked to visual impairment later on. Let me know if this is all right.
  • Should the word philanthropist simply be unlinked or substituted for a different word?

Paul Largo (talk) 12:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well in my view it's a normal English word, and if little children don't know what it means, they should look it up. It occurs many many times in popular culture articles (celebrities get rich, they donate), and I unlink the item when I see it. But if you objected, I'd back down. It's the right word to use, whether linked or not. Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to it being unlinked. It makes sense not to have too many miscellaneous links, and this would only really be a useful link if the article were about someone who is/was a philanthropist. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 11:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments. It all needs going through; this is just a sample.

  • The location settled in Hereford?
  • "This accommodation had limited space, but plans to enlarge the site were seriously affected when, in 1953 fire destroyed much of the buildings"—Why "but"? It doesn't exactly contradict the previous statement. Plural "buildings" after "much" is slightly awkward. Can't think how to rephrase at the moment; a synonym for "accommodation"?
  • Do be careful with those "new angle" flags like "but" and "however". "However, in 1978 ...".
  • You don't have to have a comma after a sentence-initial preposition, but here it might avoid jostling: "In the early 2000s RNC's halls of residence ...".
  • The new WP:Words to watch guideline says to watch such words as "prestigious". Here, you don't need it, given the rap in the remainder of the sentence. Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have now updated all of the above mentioned points. I'll have another read through the article in a day or so and look for other examples of things which might need to be changed. Cheeers Paul Largo (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rnc-logo.png - Does this image cross the Threshold of originality? If not it should be tagged {{PD-textlogo}} {{Trademark}} Fasach Nua (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this as legal stuff isn't one of my strengths. It's mentioned above that the fair use rationale is ok, but not quite right. I'll have to ask someone here for advice. Paul Largo (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC3 Pending Fasach Nua (talk) 11:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Several points:-

  • There are several citations to the RNIB magazine New Beacon. Only one ([58]) gives an article name. Are article names not available for the others? Page numbers?
  • Ref [93] refers to "NB", which is presumably New Beacon.Why is this formatted differently from the other New Beacon refs?
  • The several references to the RNIB annual report, ([68], [72], [99]), should be combined under a ref name, since the pdf applies to them all.
  • Ref [101]: The publisher should be given as "Oxford Music Online", which is not the same as the hardprint Grove. The article author's name should be given, and you should add (registration required).
  • Ref [103]: publisher given as "Sunday Mercury". This is a very commom name for a newspaper so you need to be specific. The one you are using appears to be an online newspaper, "Sunday Mercury.net"
  • Ref [60] gives the publisher as "RNIB" whereas in other publisher details the name is spelt out in full.

I will leave it for other reviewers to decide whether the reliance on RNIB-published sources represents a difficulty. As none have picked this up so far, this may not be pereived as a problem. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for taking a look at this. I've responded to each of the points below.

  • New Beacon - Sadly most of the New Beacon references are missing article names. I took the information from copies which were available online at the time, but which have since been removed. Unfortunately I didn't make a note of any titles and have to confess I can't actually remember whether they had any. I notice the later NB ref does so in theory it's possible they also did. Incidentally NB appears differently because that is how it appeared in the ref. I suppose the magazine must have changed its name, but I'm not sure. I don't know anyone to ask about this, but could probably ask at an RNIB forum or something.
  • RNC Annual Report - Unsure how to combine the RNC annual report refs into one as each refers to a different page. I might turn out to be a bit of a dummy here, but I'll post a helpme request and ask someone for help.
  • Grove Dictionary/Oxford Music Online - Should be no problem to change that and add subscription required. I don't recall seeing an author, but I'll check again.
  • Sunday Mercury - Refers to the Midlands based paper. It's offices are in Birmingham so I'll add a location parameter.
  • RNIB - I can spell the publisher's name out in full.

I should also stress here that the Royal National College for the Blind and Royal National Institute for Blind People are two separate organisations with no affiliation to each other so an RNIB ref should be no problem. Whenever I've used an RNC ref I have tried to back it up with a second third party source. Paul Largo (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with as much as I can for the time being. Added extra parameters to Mercury ref, tweaks to RNIB and Grove Dictionary. Will ask about combining refs and subscription, and I'll take a look at the Oxford Music site later and look for an author. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have now used Harvard method for refs from same documents, and added a subscription to the Oxford Music ref. Will now check for author. Paul Largo (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You were right. There is an author, so I've added him. Cheers Paul Largo (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charities often appoint a notable individual as a patron who can help to raise the organisation's profile. RNC's patron is Charles, Prince of Wales, a position he has held since 1997." Er... you're actually more or less stating there that Charles has been Prince of Wales since 1997. Please fix. I think "who has held the position since 1997" would work. Bishonen | talk 01:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • I didn't actually change that in the end. Perhaps I'm taking it too literally, but I couldn't find a reference to support the statement that charities often appoint a patron. :) Currently the sentence about this reads; "It has a number of high profile supporters which include Charles, Prince of Wales, who is the current Patron, a position he has held since 1997". Paul Largo (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three weeks, no support, but several good reviews this time. Please bring it back in a few weeks, after checking with previous opposers, for a fresh start! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [46].

Hurricane Michael (2000)[edit]

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the criteria (WP:FACR). In addition, the article contains a comprehensive Meteorological history, as well as Preparations and impact info. Also, all images have appropriate captions and alt text. For these reasons and many more, I think it deserves featured article status. 12george1 (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—have major contributors to the article, such as Juliancolton, be consulted before this nomination? (No dab links or dead external links.) Ucucha 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contacted Juliancolton and just wrote a note on CrazyC83's talk. --12george1 (talk) 15:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just confirming that 12george1 has my "permission" (not my article, of course) to nominate this. I think the lead could use some reworking, as a side-note. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose.

  • You need consistency with units. Sometimes you have imperial first, sometimes metric, and it varies whether they are abbreviated or not.
  • Needs US impact.
  • There are too many instances of passive voice - try rewording for more engaging prose.
  • Did the rainfall in Newfoundland do anything? You only focus on the winds, but 3 inches of rainfall could cause some flooding.
  • "Subsequent flights have been made into Hurricane Karen, Hurricane Isabel (while inland), Hurricane Juan and Hurricane Ophelia" - two problems with that sentence. First, Karen was a tropical storm when the flight occurred, and there should be a comma after Juan.
  • Did the hurricane not impact Nova Scotia at all?
  • The meteorological history needs date consistency.
  • The second sentence of the MH needs a complete rewrite. Only because I know the storm do I know what it means, but it needs work.
  • You should emphasize more that in 24 hours it went from a subtropical depression to a hurricane, quite an impressive feat.
  • Ref #6 (Discussion #12) doesn't cover all of the information that preceded it, since the citation in question is only a few lines long. This means there are reference problems.
  • Why did the storm move the way it did? Troughs? Ridges?
  • What allowed it to strengthen so much in its early life, and what allowed it to maintain its intensity later in its life?

All in all, more work needs to be done. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [47].

St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao[edit]

Nominator(s): ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is St. Michael's Cathedral's second nomination for FA. This nomination is important to a number of WikiProjects. If promoted, it will be:

Please take some time to give a critique, and I will endeavor to solve whatever issues are brought to my attention. Thank you. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—no dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 19:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been there and what me immediately struck was the architectural influence the double tower with its conical roofs has had on Qingdao's architecture and silhouette. The motif must have been copied many hundred times thoughout the city perimeter, having become a distinctive sign of Qingdao itself. This impact clearly needs to be addressed with some lenght (and pics). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I used to live in Qingdao, and I would not say that the motif of the cathedral was copied anywhere. The German-built houses and buildings have a German style of architecture, not neo-Romanesque. Further, many of them were built before the cathedral was built. However, if you can find a single source that backs up what you're saying, I'll do the legwork of altering the article. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not referring to the colonial houses, but to the modern Chinese architecture! Buildings which were erected in the last 10-20 years. When you drive on the highway into the city, you see many dozens of these roof-tops in the suburbs. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see that all over China. Again, please provide a reference. Your WP:OR observations aren't enough. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 00:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I am trying to point out some improvement, some avenue for further research, but the author comes across with some rules, as if it were a requirement to cite sources for an observation (this is your job, dude). If you see Neo-Romanesque roofs all over China, and I have seen them particularly in Qingdao, I don't understand why you refuse to ask yourself where they come from, since they seem to have made a very substantial impact on local architecture. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Neo-Romanesque roofs all over China, nor in Qingdao. I don't think roofs in Qingdao copy the cathedral. On Wikipedia, it is certainly necessary to cite sources for observations that appear in mainspace, and asking you for a source is my way of disagreeing with you; I'm asking you to back up your claim, because I think it is in error. If you can do that, I'm happy to admit I'm wrong, and I'll alter the article. However, I'm not your research assistant (i.e. it isn't "my job, dude" to hunt down sources to back up your observations). It is every person's job to substantiate his or her own claims, if those claims are challenged. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 01:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ruhrfisch. The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is summarized as "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This applies to both Gun Powder Ma's observation and to the article itself. Details follow

  • Gun Powder Ma - without a Reliable source to back up your observation about the influence of the cathedral on architecture in Qingdao, it cannot be included here and is original research. I think the burden of proof is on you, since you raised the point, and do not see this as a valid oppose in and of itself.
  • Noraft - in my recent peer review of this article I pointed out many places that need references. Please add them in the next three days or I will oppose. Please ask if unsure what needs references.
  • There are also problems with several references.
    • Reference 1 is to Britannica online, which is a tertiary source. There are several reliable histories of China that are secondary sources that would be much better here.
    • Current ref 7 is just a bare link and needs full information
    • How does current reference 16 "St. Michael's Cathedral [Sign]. St. Michael's Cathedral Courtyard, Qingdao: Roman Catholic Church." meet WP:RS - how does a sign in the church meet "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."?
      • I struck this since the consensus at the RS noticeboard was that it was OK. I would still prefer to have more traditional sources for as much of this information as possible. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also have concerns about the comprehensiveness of this article, which is a FA criterion and which was also mentioned in the PR, but will wait to see how the references issues are addressed first.

The reference issues alone are enough to oppose on, but I will wait to see how they are addressed in the next three days. While this is an interesting article, it does not yet meet WP:WIAFA. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think any of the unreferenced material is likely to be challenged, so I'd ask you to go ahead and specifically challenge what you think needs references, and I'll see about either discussing with you and/or digging up sources. I'd also like to ask for 7 days instead of 3.
    • Well, I am challenging them - please see my list of things that need references below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why are you challenging them? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because, as WP:WIAFA says in part "A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing." Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding reference 16, I think it qualifies as a self-published source, and as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..." Also, the sign is viewable by anyone who goes to the Church, and I will be happy to upload a photo of it (with all text legible) if that will help. However, that said, I don't think your point is completely out of order, so I've posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about it, and will be interested to see what they say.
    • I think a picture of the sign would help, but still do not see a sign as something "published" - a self-published booklet on the cathedral, yes, but a sign no. I would be willing to go with the consensus of other reviewers here on this as a source. I also suspect at least some of the information is out there in more relaible sources. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is printed on a medium for display in order to propagate information. If I print a piece of paper, that's publishing. Why is it not publishing if I print on signboard or wood? Please look past narrow definitions of the word to see the point: if an organization says something about itself, in a verifiable medium, its okay. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed reference 7 (I suspect I meant to get back to that when I stuck it in there, then forgot), and will see about finding another source for reference 1, although I note that Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary.2C secondary.2C and tertiary sources states that "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." I think the information referenced is clearly summary information.
  • Please note that I'm not trying to be argumentative, just explaining why I thought that these references were acceptable enough for me to employ. I very much appreciate your valuable feedback and suggestions. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 13:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not see you as argumentative. I am listing the things that need refs below. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went back and looked for the "many places that need references" that you pointed out. Here they are:
  • Needs a ref: Before the cathedral was started, a church was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It still stands today, but is now used as a school.[note 2]
  • WP:CK states that "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property" do not need sources. Anyone standing on the street can see that the building is a school. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not doubt you can tell it is a school today by looking at it. However, a person standing on the street cannot tell that the school was built as a church in 1902, that is what needs a ref. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a ref: which supports the conclusion that the design was altered after construction began. Construction was finished in 1934.
  • "Construction was finished in 1934." is still in the article and still needs a ref. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a ref: It is possible that the first Catholic church in Qingdao, built in 1902 on the same site was called St. Emil's Church. It is also possible that "Emil" is a mistranslation of "Michael," as both names can have two out of three Chinese characters in common ("mi" and "el").
  • The interior section, the second sentence of services, and the whole Ordinaries section need references to reliable sources.
  • Regarding the interior, do I have to find references for things one can clearly see in the photo(s)? Regarding services, this is verifiable by anyone who wants to call the cathedral (+86 0532 286 5960) and it is printed in all the church bulletins. Why challenge it? I'll take it if you do challenge it, but I think that would be a shame since it is so easily verifiable. Ordinaries I can find references for. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 17:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the interior is not shown in the photos in the article that I could see. How does calling the church office meet WP:V? Please note that an FA is supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, not just "here is what I can see in a photo and here is what the church office tells me when I call them". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't make any assertions about what can or can't be seen in the photos. I asked if I had to find references for things one can clearly see in the photos. Can I get an answer to that question, please? Regarding WP:V, "All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed." Self published sources are reliable when reporting on themselves. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still waiting for an answer to this question. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have answered this in multiple places - Wikipedia is not based on personal observations, but on verifiable information from reliable sources. What is to keep me from saying I have been there and the church has a large ambo and an unusual monstrance, both showing St. Michael defeating the Devil. I have never been to the church, and have no idea if these things are there, but they seem plausible for a Roman Catholic cathedral named St. Michael's. Wikipedia is not a "I said / you said" contest as to who is most believable, it is based on references to what reliable published sources (preferably third-party and indepependent) have said. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things that need references
  • Foreigners, who were centered in foreign sections of the cities, ... effectively removing them from the control of local governments.
  • Well it is the same Brittanica ref, and I think there have to be better refs out there for this, but OK for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before the cathedral was started, a church was built on that same parcel of land, in 1902. It still stands today, but is now used as a school.[note 2] The note does not give a reference. Also please avoid use of vague time terms like "today" (as of 2010 would work)
  • Will get back to this. Your point about use of contemporary language is well taken, and that has been fixed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Construction was finished in 1934.
  • I mentioned this before, but I do not understand how the large block quote on the removal of the crosses in the "1938–1976: Occupation, liberation, and defacement" section is referenced to three different sources. It is a translation, so is it a composite?
  • There are three different sources that all carry the same block quote in Chinese (well, some actually have more, but this text is common to all three). As it is the only first-hand account in existence, it is carried on multiple sources. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Interior section, the whole second, third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs have no refs and need them.
  • Why do they need them? Why would you challenge this material? It is neither controversial nor something anyone would be motivated to lie about. I don't understand. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:V is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Please see below for more reasons why I am expecting so much - if this is to become a FA, it needs to be some of the best work here and that means it needs more refs. No one is accusing anyone of lying, but all FAs need a professional level of sourcing. This is not there yet and needs the refs to start to get there. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As does this The pipe organ sits upon the choir loft over the west front entrance.
  • I disagree that it needs a reference, but I've got one handy, so that is now fixed. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass is celebrated daily by Bishop Li Mingshu at 6 am, with additional masses on Sunday and festivals on Easter and Christmas. Services are held in Korean and Chinese, with one Korean and several Chinese priests on site. needs a ref and needs time context (as of May 2010...) I agree that it seems unusual for a bishop to personally celebrate mass on a daily basis at 6 AM.
  • I also agree that it is unusual, but it's the case, attributable to the church bulletins. Like I said, if you challenge it, I'll take it out, but really I think that nothing is gained... ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 19:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the Ordinaries section has any refs.
  • Fixed. When you're ready to strike, please don't forget to strike it in the other places you mentioned it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 03:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the internet refs are lacking publishers

As I said above, I have other concerns, but these are the most pressing. I will raise the others once these have been addressed. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please look at Stanford Memorial Church the only FA on a church I could find, or Joseph Priestley House, an FA on a building I cowrote. Look at the number of references throughout and the level of detail. That is what I expect here, though I understand sources may be limited. You can't play it both ways and say Gun Powder Ma must cite sources and you do not have to here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you say "Look at the number of references," do you mean "Number of footnotes? Because the reference density of St. Michael's Cathedral is far greater than Stanford Memorial Church. They've got 6616 words and 47 different references (sources). That's 140 words per reference. I've got 1966 words and 19 references. That's 103. Regarding the situation with Gun Powder Ma, I'm not "playing it both ways." The difference is that I think he's wrong, so I challenged him. You, on the other hand, don't think I'm wrong. You just think that having a footnote attached to every other sentence makes something a "professional level of sourcing." You know I found unsourced statements in Stanford Memorial Church too...but that's okay, because they aren't on things anyone would challenge. I think our disagreement here stems from differing definitions of "professional level of sourcing." However, all that said, I'll add them. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well in the peer review I wrote "The interior section, the second sentence of services, and the whole Ordinaries section need references to reliable sources." but you chose not to add them. Then on May 8 at 12:11 I wrote (above) "...in my recent peer review of this article I pointed out many places that need references. Please add them in the next three days or I will oppose." Later that same day at 18:23 I wrote "In the Interior section, the whole second, third, fifth, and sixth paragraphs have no refs and need them." Then at 22:36 the same day I gave you two examples of what I think are good model articles, which are much more detailed and have better referencing. I am not sure how to make myself any clearer - this is too much material not to have references, especially for FA (but I would say even for a GA).
      • You said above that you were not being argumentative, so I will assume good faith and explain what kind of sourcing I think this article needs. FAs in the last few years are extensively referenced - a ref is understood to apply to all previous sentences in the paragraph, back to the previous ref. A new paragraph needs new refs, even if they are repeated from previous paragraphs. There are generally very few sentences without refs in an FA. The Interior section in this article has six paragaphs, but four of them still have no refs whatsoever. They need refs - I would not pass this as a GA without more refs. It is not a question of some magical ratio of refs to text, but rather the question is "Are almost all statements in the articles sourced to reliable, published third-party references?" I do not yet see that here.
      • As I have also said before, the article does not seem to me to be comprehensive, which is a FA criterion too. I will point out those areas soon. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensiveness and MOS issues
  • Please see WP:WIAFA "1b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" Here are the questions I still have after reading the article, as well as some MOS issues
  • The German concession ended in 1914 - what were the Germans still doing in Qingdao to build a cathedral in the early 1930s?
  • The article has some geographic uncertainties - while Shandong and Qingdao's location within it are mentioned, the alternate spelling "Shantung" is not explained. As a result statements like "Its first mission was established in 1882 on Southern Shantung, China, a district of over 10 million people, which contained 158 Catholics." are unclear.
  • One of the hallmarks of a FA is that all the little details are taken care of, like naming and spelling things consistently. In two paragraphs the article has links to the "Apostolic Vicariate of Southern Shantung" and "Vicariate Apostolic of Southern Shan-tung" - pick one version of the name and use it consistenly. Also watch WP:OVERLINKing as both of these are linked or redirects to the current diocese article.
  • When the Divine Word Missionaries acturally arrive in Qingdao (as opposed to Shandong itself)?
  • While the Japanese conquest of the city in 1914 is mentioned, it would help provide context to the reader to mention that this was part of World War I, and that this effectivley ended the German concession - see WP:PCR
  • When was the diocese of Qingdao established? The section on Ordinaries lists the first Ordinary as beginning in 1925, but does not make it clear if he was a bishop as well.
  • When did the Japanese occupation during WWII end?
  • There is a 20 year gap from the Marin Band on the steps (1946) to the Cultural Revolution starting (1966)
  • What year were the crosses removed?
  • What happened to the congregation during the Cultural Revolution?
  • Are the names of the artists who did the interior work known?
  • Is the artwork in the interior the original (from 1934, perhaps restored) or was it necessary to completely redecorate the interior?
  • The Ordinaries section is very bare bones - can more details be added about the individual bishops or what they did?

Hope this helps. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That helps quite a bit, actually. Let me answer a couple questions here, and then ask one: (1) There is no information on what year the crosses were removed, after extensive searches in both English and Chinese. The names of the artists of the interior work are not known. The original stained glass is all gone, replaced with regular glass that has had stained-glass style murals painted over it (there is not a reference for this, just a personal observation), and I'm sure most of the original statues were destroyed. One can see crowbar marks on the edges of some of the stonework in certain places. Most everything inside the church is from the 1981 restoration, so artists names are not known. (2) There is no specific information about "the congregation" during the Cultural Revolution, just a general description of what happened to religion in general. My question is: are not having these two pieces of information going to stop this from being a FA? I think I can provide most of the rest. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to say what is essential for a FA. I would not say in advance that the article must have this - sometimes the sources are just not there. Some thoughts. Are there any new reports from 1981 when the cathedral reopened? Seems like they might be a source of useful information (though I doubt they would be online). Also I think that some general information on churches in the Cultural Revolution would be useful (though specifics would be even better). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More
  • I do not read Chinese, but tried Google to translate a few of the online Chinese sources. Please look more carefully at these - they give the area of the church, the fact that it is shaped like a Latin cross, mention the rose window visible on the facade, describe some of the constuction materials (sounds like reinforced concrete and granite), mention the red tiles on the tower rooves, mention stained glass windows, Italian Renaiisanance decorations, etc.
  • The function of the building is important too - the fact that the Chinese government paid for the restoration is mentioned in one of the Chinese sources. More could be said about the power struggles between the Vatican and Beijing - based just on the what is in the article arleady, a careful reader can learn that the cathedral reopened in 1981, but without a papal mandate for the bishop, then there is an eight year gap with no bishop, then the current bishop is appointed in 2000 but does not arrive in town until 2005 - this should all be explained in more detail.
  • I have noted places before where times need to be given, but will be explicit about two - the 6 AM services by that early rising bishop need some qualification - as of 2010, or since 2004 (if he has been doing this since coming to Qingdao). Also search for words like current or currently and fix those (Joseph Li Mingshu (Appointed 2000)[22] Note: Oversaw the diocese from Beijing until 2005. Currently lives in Qingdao.)

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [48].

Nathan Drake (character)[edit]

Nominator(s): かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated back in January, and received some support. Other issues were brought up, however, and the nomination did not pass. I believe those issues have now all been addressed, and submit the article again for reconsideration. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looking through the whole article carefully, I believe that it meets the requirements to receive Wikipedia's highest rating. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead.

  1. Overlinking: "t-shirt", "jeans", and possibly "ad-libbing" (which we're supposed to be familiar with as English-speakers).
  2. "Drake possesses a strong personality"—plain English "has"? I see further down the claim that he is "likable" is ascribed to "many reviewers"; so "strong" is WP's opinion ... possibly if it's not contentious.
  3. Perhaps a colon rather than a semicolon after "environments"?
  4. Is "eye candy" different from "a sex object"? Tony (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Tony:
1. T-shirt and jeans de-linked; I am not sure that all readers may know what ab-libbing is however, as it is personally not a word I encounter frequently.
2. I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Possesses is a perfectly acceptable word to use here. Could you elaborate on what you are trying to say in the second sentence?
3. Changed to a colon and removed the phrase "for example"
4. Eye candy and sex object can be used in slightly different situations. Eye candy does not necessarily have to be sexual; a flashy graphic could be considered eye candy. However, in this particular situation with Drake, the words would be used basically the same, so I have removed "eye candy" from the lead so as to combat fluff.
かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per 1(a):

Please review comma usage with regards to compound sentences. Examples include the following passages (only the first section and the lead are included, other instances of commas being misused in this manner are all over the article):

  • Drake possesses a strong personality, and often jokes and quips during the game.
  • Nathan Drake has been called the new mascot of the PlayStation 3 game console, and is increasingly identified with the platform.
  • The production staff drew inspiration from the pulp adventure genre when creating the video games in the Uncharted series, and based Drake on the stereotypical characters of adventure films and novels, giving him wit, resourcefulness, and strong principles. (sentence is also a bit drawn out)
  • if a reaction did not work as planned, or took too long, the production team removed it. (iffy, but IMO that first comma is not necessary)
  • Drake's physical prowess was modeled on that of Savage, and his personality inspired by the vibrant color and globetrotting identity of Tintin. (though you can also add "was" between "personality" and "inspired" to make that work)
  • He is not a master of hand-to-hand combat, and throws punches without style or skill.
  • Matthew Drake was seriously contemplated, but received a poor reaction from those it was presented to.
  • Eventually, Naughty Dog settled on the name Nathan for its ability to be shortened to Nate, and the perception that it sounded historical.

Other prose issues:

  • However, with Nathan Drake, the company wanted to produce a more average character, one who did not possess the same amount of confidence, who was more realistic and humble. ("However", a word to avoid in general, is not needed. The second half of that sentence is not very concise, either and needs some tweaking.)
  • He was deliberately costumed simply in a t-shirt and jeans ... ("simply" doesn't work, suggest alternate wording like "plain t-shirt and jeans" or something similar)
  • The term, first coined by video game designer Tim Schafer, led to Naughty Dog altering Drake's appearance ... (noun plus "-ing")
  • Tim Schafer commented "It was all super next-gen ... (I think you're missing an end-punctuation, such as a colon, before the quotation mark.)
  • Drake wounds Lazaravic, leaving the guardians to kill him, and returns to the village, where he and Elena kiss and begin a relationship. (recommend either a semicolon or a full stop in the middle of the sentence)

Those blockquotes should at a minimum have quotation marks around them to let readers know that they're quotes. Some readers (like me when I read the article) can get confused between actual article text and a quotation.

The paragraphing is rather choppy especially in the "Character design" section (a few one or two-sentence paragraphs), "Personality" subsection, and "Merchandise and promotion" subsection. Paragraphs need to be full, and paragraphs containing only a couple of sentences are to be avoided.

Also, the caption of the lead image is not within WP:CAPTION; if it is not a complete sentence, then no end-punctuation is used. Also, "pictured" is not needed in the Sir Francis Drake photo.

In general, it's going to need another good comb-through on copyediting to meet 1(a). –MuZemike 22:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The manual of style says no quotations around block quotes; I will address the other points a bit later when I have the chance. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, a compound sentence may or may not have a comma. This is more of a stylistic choice than a matter of correctness. I do not believe that the manual of style even addresses it, and our own article on comma gives references stating that using a comma to separate two independent clauses joined with and, but, and the like is a stylistic choice: "Two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction (for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so) or having a complementary relationship[4] may or may not be separated by commas, depending on preferred style." Both Chicago and MLA styles dictate that it is optional as well, though Chicago discourages it, it still recognizes it as correct grammar. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest in such instances you try reading the sentences out loud. Generally, giving a pause in such situations makes it sound far better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was incorrect on the blockquotes part and has struck that out. Apologies for the misunderstanding. –MuZemike 01:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [49].

Douglas MacArthur[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 14:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images There are a number of pictures of US statues in this article, can links be added to these images to the licensing of the 3D artworks from which the images are derived. The author mentioned in File:View_copy.jpg is not named. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? The single statue appears only to be licensed by the photographer, which does not cover the sculptor's derivative copyright. The same can be said for "The Memorial to General MacArthur's Leyte Landing in the Philippines", for which a location should be provided, if only on the image file. Given the very restrictive US rules on public statuary, I'm not sure this is enough, although it would be a shame to lose these images. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mean I added the tags. This took me by surprise, as in Australia public art may be freely photographed without permission. I fired off an email to the MacArthur Memorial asking about the copyright on the statues but did not receive a reply. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Comment - I've only looked it through very quickly but it feels a bit overlinked (especially the lead)... Please check which wikilinks are really needed, I mean, who doesn't know what a mutiny is? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 22:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't read the article but it surely fails criteria 4 - ie. it is way too long. It is 94 kB (15533 words) (and that doesn't even include stuff in quote templates). I realize that this article is never going to be short, but when articles such as Catholic Church and Donner Party are cut to around 50 kb, it should also be possible to make this shorter. --Harthacnut (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church, 91 kb; Donner Party, 80 kb.--Grahame (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KB is not how prose size is measured: this article is over 15,000 words. Catholic Church is about 6,800 and Donner Party is 9,400. There are many areas where this article can be better summarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you are right Sandy, but where does it actually say this? The Criteria & various FA advice pages have very little on the subject, and when they do, seem to refer to only KB, just like Wikipedia:Article size. Links to prose-measuring tools are hard to find too. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Johnbod; I have just now seen this message. Before Dr pda's script, we always had to do the prose size calculations manually (get the printable version of the article, edit copy, edit paste it into word, delete the portions that aren't counted in prose size, and use the Word count). WP:SIZE already explains the rest (5,000 to 10,000 word count for reader attention span), so I'm not sure what else to add? KB is a rough approximation of word count, as explained in WP:SIZE-- historically, KB was measured because older computers couldn't load larger articles-- with faster computers, the focus switched to reader attention span (as well as overall size and load time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy & continue this bit at FAC talk, as it is a general issue. Johnbod (talk) 12:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Church is a B class article in the process of a major expansion,[1] Donner Party is about a minor and obscure event. The article should be compared with featured articles like John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Donner Party is not a minor and obscure event, and the size of Catholic Church was the subject of a very widely advertised RFC, where it was decided that the size was too long. In addition, this would be the largest FA, period, if it passed. The next is Elvis Presley, and several reviewers complained that they would have opposed if they had read that FAC-- but they didn't. This FAC has the support of almost purely MilHist reviewers: do general readers want to see so much detail that is about the events/battles instead of the man? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure lets compare those. MacArthur is 40% longer than Churchill (11039 words), and MacArthur will, if promoted, be the longest FA. (See User:Dr_pda/Featured_article_statistics)--Harthacnut (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ :The Grand Old Duke of York,
    He had ten thousand men;
    He marched them up to the top of the hill,
    And he marched them down again.
    And when they were up, they were up,
    And when they were down, they were down,
    And when they were only half-way up,
    They were neither up nor down.
Johnbod (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well as far as I'm concerned, and I'm in the minority, I think people harp on too much about "too long" and if the guy was a giant figure in their field and changed the world, then I'm all for 80 or even 120kb prose articles (especially with titanic politicians and generals who were always doing something, or intriguing etc) YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of length was brought up during the article reconstruction. Having an article such as "Military career of" to funnel off some length doesn't make too much sense. MacA was born on an Army installation and died in an Army Hospital. His entire life was the military. In opposite, having an article such as "Personal life of" doesn't do much good either. MacA had no personal life worth an article. Perhaps an "MacA in WWII" might help reduce size but that would in effect carry away the needed context for the reader. I'm not thrilled with the length of this article either but alternatives have been looked at previously and nothing easy and clear has been found. Reducing the amount of text currently in the article will result in a loss of content that I feel is required to completely explain the concept of this guy. --Brad (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "Honors and awards" section should be rolled up into prose in the previous section, which is where all the more notable honours are already. I don't think the length is excessive, but that will save a few bytes. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Honors and awards" section was split off into a separate article. Only the summary remains. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's the bit I mean! Look at all those section heads for two sentences. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But consolidating will save twelve words at most, much less than will be lost if we have to bring anything back from the subarticles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See 2b, re headings; I can't discern any need for the complex TOC-- they could all be eliminated and consolidated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Involved support. I don't consider my involvement gigantic but I did make minor corrections, did the selected works section and other minor cleanup things. I also followed along with Hawkeye7's progress using Perret's book as a reference and made comments where necessary. Mac A was a person I studied in depth in the early 90's so a lot of the information is elementary to me but this was a great refresher course. I can say with certainty that this article is accurate and presented in the best NPOV manner as is possible with a controversial figure. --Brad (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comments I've been looking at the comments about article length and overlinking and I have to agree there are some areas where too much detail is given. Certainly that can be reduced. As for overlinking, the article is overlinked. I attempted to delink during the article construction but my changes were inevitably reverted. I can work on delinking but if there's going to be a lot of disagreement I'll bow out as I did the last time. --Brad (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Neutral When I began addressing the overlink situation I really began to see areas that go into off topic detail. For example the Operation Cartwheel section has more content than Operation Cartwheel itself. With that in mind I don't see the purpose of removing overlinking until the article is trimmed down. At the same time this review is going on there is new conversation on the talk page regarding article length. --Brad (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the length is also not a problem for me and is to be expected for a person of such stature and prominence as MacArthur. -MBK004 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I supported this in its recent ACR and I feel it meets the criteria for FA. Length is not an issue for me in this regard, as an article about this subject is always going to be large. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also reviewed this for its ACR and think that it meets the FA criteria. MacArthur was one of the most important, and complex, military and political figures of the 20th century and I think that the article's length is OK - it's hard to see what could be spun off into its own article and the quality of this article is consistently high. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINKing everywhere needs to be addressed (samples).
    • I can only disagree with you. Few readers will outside know what the word "hazing" means. (In Australia, we would say "bastardisation" but I wrote the article in American English.) Nor do most know what malaria is. I think these should be linked. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As one random sample of the length issue, consider this paragraph (typical of what is found throughout):
  • On April 21, 1914, President Woodrow Wilson was alerted to a German shipment of weapons for Victoriano Huerta and ordered the U.S. occupation of Veracruz. Secretary of War Lindley Miller Garrison designated Wood to command an expedition to Mexico City in the event that war broke out between the United States and Mexico. Wood handed over the job of Chief of Staff to Major General William Wallace Wotherspoon, and selected a headquarters staff that included MacArthur, who was sent to reconnoiter the Veracruz area. MacArthur arrived at Veracruz on the battleship USS Nebraska on May 1, 1914.[23]
  • A good deal of the text is not about MacArthur, but giving background about the conflicts, and could probably benefit from a better use of linking and summary style. If readers want full history on the U.S. Occupation of Veracruz, they should be able to link out to that article, while reading here only about MacArthur-- the article loses focus on MacArthur which so much text about the events. This FAC needs independent review from non-MilHist editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have trimmed this section. There is no point in undertaking a general reduction effort, as there is no target. Nor is there consensus that the article is too long. Rather, I still have editors asking for more material to be included. There is a summary of the article at the top though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for review from more editors, a couple have been reviewing the article. I have left invitations to comment on their talk pages. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia I copyedited this last night. It's very good, but as a Wikipedia article, it suffers from too much context. I am glad to see some work going into paring out the less important details. Some specific other issues:

  • "MacArthur enthusiastically supported the New Deal by operating the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)." - he did what?
  • "On MacArthur's insistence, the mission was flown anyway by Brigadier General Ralph Royce, the results of the Battle of the Coral Sea made Brett's assessment seem optimistic." - something strange happened to the text here; not sure if these just need to be split or if there are other bits missing.
    • Split it. Did a little re-wording while I'm at it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Incheon" and "Inchon" are each used three times. Please standardize.
    • Every source uses the latter; Wikipedia uses the former. Stadardised on "Incheon".
  • The foreign language terms Légion d'honneur and Croix de guerre are inconsistently italicized. Same with the loanwords kamikaze and en route, which arguably do not need italics. In any case, application should be consistent for each set.
  • Please review image captions for punctuation: only full sentences should end with a full stop.
  • The section called Meuse-Argonne Offensive actually covers the Battle of Saint-Mihiel as well as the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. To make matters more confusing, it uses the alternate name Battle of the Argonne Forest for the latter. Any way to clarify these?
    • Added Battle of Saint-Mihiel to the heading. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since we're favoring Meuse-Argonne Offensive, I've changed the listing in the infobox to match it. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, the section called Second Battle of the Marne also covers the Champagne-Marne Offensive. Additionally, there is no link to the Second Battle of the Marne article.
    • Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is that this section covers two battles. I questioned its being named for only one battle; you changed the name to refer to the other battle. It should mention both, yes? And it still doesn't link to Second Battle of the Marne. Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Second Battle of the Marne is the Champagne-Marne Offensive. I've just used this name more consistently. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along the lines of those last two issues, I would really like to see {{Main}} links in place under the applicable section headers. With these issues taken care of, and a bit more pruning, I would be happy to support. Maralia (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Main" template is used when this article is a summary of that article-- it's usually not, rather contains some info from that article, and then expands on MacArthur's role, so other templates (See also, Further, etc) might be more appropriate, once summary style is used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck resolved issues, and made a few replies above. Sandy is of course right about Main not being the ideal template; it should be {{further}}, I would think. Still looking forward to further trimming. Some obvious targets would be extraneous detail (why is it important to note what floors offices were on?) and information better located elsewhere (the details of the changes MacArthur implemented at West Point). Maralia (talk) 02:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment
    • Too damn long. trim, please. A lot. Don't make me whip out my Oppose.
    • "MacArthur exonerated Hirohito". Why?
    • "MacArthur continued his habit of reading military history and biography. By 1950, the only remaining..." Paragraph unity problem. • Ling.Nut 01:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've moved this sentence to the section about the loss of his library. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of editors commenting so far on length (and overlinking): Harthacnut, Esuzu, Maralia, Ling.Nut, Brad101, and me. Independent (non-MilHist) review is still largely lacking here, and broad consensus should be gained if WP:SIZE is to be surpassed by 50% and set a new precedent for FAs. Also, 2b, TOC, should not be overwhelming (e.g.; Awards). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This edit removed several of my posts ... I will begin reinstating them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's all restored now! (Same thing happened to me once in an edit conflict.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry about this. It has trouble with multiple edit conflicts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take your point but I have no way of obtaining more reviews. :( The article has already had far more editors comment than other FAs I've written. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The lead does not cover anything from the "Later life" section. Ucucha 03:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency: both "U. S." and "U.S." in lead; "D.C." in lead but "DC" in first section. I was able to make various basic style and MOS fixes in the lead and first section, which suggests that a similar check is needed throughout. Ucucha 03:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Layout problem: the third column of the reference list disappears on my screen because the portal box takes up too much space. Ucucha 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several refs seem to be lacking in essential information, like current ref. 307 to "photo here Websites". Ucucha 03:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All refs have been checked and reviewed twice. No problems. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are certainly problems: I gave one example. If the reviews you mention missed that, too bad for them. Ucucha 04:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they are apparent in these examples:
          • 307.^ photo here Websites, retrieved December 28, 2008
          • 308.^ General Douglas MacArthur (Character) on Internet Movie Database, retrieved February 24, 2010
        • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In fact, there is missing data in citations on many websites, examples:
            • Honours and Awards – Douglas Macarthur, retrieved March 15, 2010
            • General Douglas MacArthur Farewell Address to Congress, retrieved March 13, 2010
          • (Also, Macarthur or MacArthur, consistency?)
          • Citations should specify publisher always, author and date when available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Web sites cannot have publishers... all we have is the title and accessdate... Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hawkeye7, it's troubling that you are dismissing reviewer comments without correcting the issues-- I just added a lot of publishers myself,[50] and there is still more to do. I'm also troubled that a MilHist A-class review was passed with missing publishers-- was reliability of sources even checked there? And I'll add that making these small edits on this article is difficult, because the load time is such a problem due to its size (and I've seen no progress on that issue in spite of numerous requests here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I went through every book in the bibliography. Every one has a publisher. I weeded out all the poor sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Have to concur that the lead is inelegant. The first paragraph seems to be repetitive: the Medal of Honor is repeated twice or thrice in the whole lead depending on if you count the joint mention with his father Arthur who is also mentioned twice in quick order as is General of the Army and field marshal of the Philippines (should that be capitalized?). On the other hand the battles in New Guinea like later life noted by Ucucha aren't mentioned. It seems some sort of style format is being followed and that is why the title General of the Army precedes the subject's name but if it wasn't for that I'd start simply with "Douglas MacArthur was a General of the Army (general of the army?) of the United States and field marshal (Field Marshal?) of the Philippines..." Right afterward maybe "American general" can be replaced with "American commander", "American military leader", or something else that doesn't make the beginning sound repetitive. In comparison, articles on presidents don't start off with their title in front of their name. I might be inclined to present a slightly altered rewrite of the lead but I wouldn't want to upset any established convention being followed by the main contributor so I will just mention it for now. 3 edits. Lambanog (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MOS says that the first sentence should define the subject and state his notability. The problem with MacArthur is that he has an unusually large number of claims to notability because he was:
      1. Awarded his nation's highest award for valour;
      2. Awarded the second-highest award for valour multiple times;
      3. Held the highest rank;
      4. Held the highest post, i.e. Chief of Staff;
      5. Played an important role in multiple significant military events;
      6. Commanded sizeable bodies of troops in combat;
    • So he gets a paragraph which lists his claims to notability. The lead section then breaks into a summary. We have only four paragraphs to work with, so the first covers his early life and the Great War, the second the period between the wars, and the third covers Second World War and Korea. New Guinea gets one sentence. He didn't do anything nearly as significant in later life, which is not unusual.
    • MOS:BIO says that the opening sentence should start with name and title. Hence military biography articles start with a rank. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is because of the abundance of things he is notable for that the repetition of certain things stands out. Is the Medal of Honor such a big deal that it bears repeating over being de facto ruler of post-WWII occupied Japan or being named supreme commander of UN forces in the Korean War? I think it would make the lead stronger if the repetition could be reduced. I'm comparing with the lead for John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough and that might be a good one to look at to help streamline things and put things in a slightly less militaristic perspective. From my civilian view the medals are less important than the roles he had. Enumerating the medals, awards, and ranks achieved might make for a stronger ending lead paragraph. Something like "By the end of his career he had been awarded..." then list all the important distinctions. Lambanog (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started through the lead, and hit glitches. (By the way, logical quotation review needed.)
    • Douglas MacArthur ... was an American general, and field marshal of the Philippine Army. ... Arthur MacArthur, Jr., and Douglas MacArthur were the first father and son to each be awarded the medal. He was one of only five men ever to rise to the rank of general of the army and the only one to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army.
      • First to rise to the rank of general in which army? I don't even know what that sentence is trying to say? (non-MilHist person alert ... y'all might know what you mean, but the rest of us might not ... he was the first American or Phillipine general?)
    • The son of Arthur MacArthur, Jr., an Army officer who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in the American Civil War, Douglas MacArthur was raised as a military brat in the American Old West.
      • Why is his father's Medal of Honor-- already mentioned in the preceding paragraph-- replayed here? In fact, why is that sentence needed at all, since the preceding paragraph already tells us who his father is?
    • ... where he attempted to undertake a series of reforms.
      • Redundancy?
    • His next assignment was in the Philippines, where in 1924 he was instrumental in quelling the Philippine Scout Mutiny, which had broken out amongst the Philippine Scouts at Fort McKinley.
      • Is the rest of that detail necessary in the lead?
    • In March 1942, MacArthur, his family and his staff left Corregidor in four PT boats, and escaped to Australia,
      • Again, unclear on the detail provided in the lead, versus other info that could be added.
        • Kept this, as the lead should mention the Corregidor and PT boats. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving on:
    • He was named valedictorian, with a final year average of 97.33.
      • Might want to clarify out of 100, for non-US readers-- unsure on that one.
    • MacArthur's father and grandfather unsuccessfully sought to secure Douglas a presidential appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point, ...
      • Why were they unsuccessful? Considering their backgrounds and his achievements, this is surprising.
        • I believe that it was because of the press coverage at the time decrying the large number of sons of Army officers who were attending West Point. I cannot prove this though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stopped there; would still like to see some non-MilHist review of this important bio, independent review and copy edit, and tighter writing more focused on the subject of the bio: such an important figure warrants a readable article. By the way, was the comment at the bottom of the GA nomination discussed, considered or resolved? I'm with Ling.Nut; please don't make me use the Oppose button, and what is going on with MilHist's A-class review? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comment at the bottom was added after the GAR closed although it had valid points. --Brad (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed that, and then PMA and I edit conflicted when he was raising a similar point. I don't know Military History enough to know if it's a valid concern-- just asking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it was answered, by another editor. There is an article on Unit 731 and this was described there. It was agreed that the MacArthur article had enough text on war crimes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and Speedy close. An article is neutral if, after reading it, you cannot tell where the author's sympathies lie. Hawkeye's sympathies are as evident in the article as in the quote at the head of the review.
    • Several not uncontroversial claims are made on the sole authority of MacArthur's memoirs. This would be unacceptable in any article; it is unnecessary and doubly undesirable in a widely-studied figure with a contemporary reputation for vanity.
      • Which claims? It should have been only used for facts. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The details of his heroic exploit at Veracruz
        • His coming up with the idea of a Rainbow Division, and wowing the Secretary of War
        • His actions about the Bonus Marchers
        depend solely on his autobiography. (Doubtless there are more.) Are these facts? A man is not at oath in his memoirs.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've removed the MacArthur references and re-sourced from James. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No mention of any of this contemporary or later criticism is made.
      • As per the FAQ, the editors chose to stick with facts and leave out opinions in order to achieve a NPOV. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's a poor argument. NPOV consists in neutral presentation. Arguably, the article would not be complete without mentioning public perception, including opinions, of him. Ucucha 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The article mentions public perceptions in several places. Count them. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Favorable opinions, yes. That's the problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • That is just not true. The article mentions perceptions at West Point for being a general's son; of his eccentric dress; of his handling the Bonus March; of his handling of the campaign in the Philippines; of his handling of the advance on the Philippines; and more Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage of MacArthur's firing is tendentious and incomplete.
      • This is mentioned. There is a main article on the Dismissal, so this is just a summary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did not say it wasn't mentioned; but is this bare and one-sided mention due weight, either for the event or for its reception? No. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • What do you think it should also cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The account of the Occupation of Japan is strikingly incomplete; the change of policy to the right in 1949 [is omitted entirely].
      • This is mentioned. There is a main article on the Occupation of Japan, so this is just a summary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • See item above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • But it is about MacArthur or the occupation? The policy change was in Washington, not Tokyo. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It should be about MacArthur's conduct of the occupation; it is not - except insofar as it can be made an excuse for more school-girlish swooning.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In brief, this article has manifestly been written under the impression that what we want is the worst type of three-volume Victorian panegyric. Hence both the length and the tone. We do not; this is unacceptable, and we should cease to waste time on this until some editor is willing to rewrite from scratch - using a full range of contemporary sources (as I said, commenting on the article, where is Present at the Creation?), not just MacArthur and his friends; and reliable secondary sources.
  • It omits the most well-known fact about MacArthur: that Truman fired him for disobeying Truman's orders, and replaces it with a partisan falsehood (in the lead) and with an excuse (in the body).
  • Anybody capable of writing this atrocity cannot fix it; this should be closed until someone with a non-partisan view of American history is willing to take the effort of rewriting it from scratch - which is essentially what a sentence-by-sentence revision will require.
  • In the meantime, Hawkeye7, go edit something else. Do not promote under this nominator Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your tone is unhelpful, PMA; it would be wise to strike some of your commentary above and focus on the article. Are there sources missing that should be included? Is so, please name them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strike what you please, as long as it remains clear that no mere local tweak will render this article acceptable. It is understandable that nominators become emotionally involved; but this nomination evinces a total lack of understanding of what compliance with policy means. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cited Dean Acheson's Present at the Creation as a (primary) source which demonstrates that the view pushed by this article is not consensus. It would certainly have been consulted by anyone looking for a variety of views on our subject.
      • There appears to be no general history of the Korean War in the bibliography, aside from a few citations of the United States official history (is there any evidence that this official history is a reliable source? Most aren't.)
      • A life of Hirohito would be a useful source for the peculiar relationship between MacArthur and Hirohito; doubtless American shogun : MacArthur, Hirohito and the American duel with Japan by Robert Harvey will be copious, but the few paragraphs in any biography of the Emperor may be more useful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Official History of the Korean War is a very reliable source. I don't usually use general histories as they tend to be tertiary sources, based entirely on other books. In the article I did use Weinstraub and Stanton. Leary, James and Manchester also cover Korea. That MacArthur was fired for disobeying Truman's orders is not correct. Nor was he fired for being defeated. Pealman's Truman and MacArthur: Policy, Politics, and the Hunger for Renown (2008) examines this myth in detail, and reflects the consensus among historians that MacArthur was fired for disagreeing with Truman. Going into Ridgway's attempts to extract orders from the administration is beyond the scope of the article, but I'm hoping that it would be covered in the Korean War articles, which are unfortunately still very much under development. Looking at American history from the outside, there is no doubt that the President can fire any officer for any or no reason. In this case he fired a man seen by many Americans as a hero. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pearlman's own summary of his position is MacArthur was therefore likely to dance along the sideline of defiance until he finally stepped out into what Truman would call “rank insubordination.” That's not quite the same thing, is it? (Nor is any word of it reflected in the article.)
          • That you believe MacArthur to be a hero is all too obvious. That is why you should not be editing his article, much less nominating the result for FA. This is propaganda for a non-consensus position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearlman also strongly suggests that the claims made about the JCS are at best a half-truth: the Joint Chiefs “unanimously agreed that from a purely military point of view they thought he should be relieved.” (p.214) He goes on to qualify: In point of technical fact, the JCS had merely “concurred,” a word with a particular definition within military organizations. It did not mean advocated, but rather accepted without objection, if “that should be the President’s decision.” Granted the distinction could be subtle, particularly in the midst of a tension-ridden moment. Truman faced a historic decision, looked for support, and eventually got it from Marshall and Bradley, who dropped debate about alternatives to dismissal. Our article, however, does not say that they agreed with MacArthur's dismissal, nor that they concurred; but that they "decided not to recommend it". Really, spin like that should be kept in the ball-park. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Article prose size (including all HTML code): 138 kB; Prose size (text only): 83 kB; 13,836 words "readable prose size" This means that it would not be largest Featured Article? Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dave and I had another go at trimming. Prose now down to 77 kB and 12,770 words. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I applaud the wonderful work you have put into this article, and I feel it is very near FA quality and a very important topic. I won't bother with a full review, but I do not detect a great bias in the article. My comment though, is in a way related to that. The dismissal section is very wanting for details. Arguably, it was one of, if the largest, event of his career. The uproar and furor of it all was and is unprecedented. Nothing like that has ever happened before or since. Even the dismissals of the Civil War generals was nothing like this. I don't feel like that section does the event justice. I would feel better about it if the sub-article was more developed, but even it is really only cursory. There are alot of good sources that go into detail about the episode, and everything going on secretly behind the scenes. It almost feels like the whole thing is downplayed as it is now. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I hope you might reconsider reviewing the whole article. I too was hoping for more from the Dismissal article, which is still under construction. I'm a military historian specialising in WWI and WWII, so writing about Cold War politics means I'm no longer writing as an expert. Editing the section on Korea involved reading through a dozen books on the subject and gave me an appreciation of MacArthur's handling of the war. The dismissal section was carefully crafted to avoid and in some cases refute an number of common myths and misconceptions. I may have been over-cautious in handling what I knew to be a sensitive topic, especially in the wake of the War in Iraq. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't yet read further, but the problems of the "inelegant lead" are still present. Example:

Arthur MacArthur, Jr., and Douglas MacArthur were the first father and son to each be awarded the medal. He was one of only five men ever to rise to the rank of general of the army in the U.S. Army, and the only man to become a field marshal in the Philippine Army.

The son of Arthur MacArthur, Jr., Douglas MacArthur was raised as a military brat in the American Old West.

  • Why are we told twice in three sentences who his father is?
  • Why so much emphasis on awards in the lead vs. other issues (as raised above)?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've removed the second mention of his father. The original concept was that the first paragraph would stand separate from the rest, just as the summary stands apart from the article. But where I come from, who your father is is the most important thing in your life. And so it was for MacArthur, who did not become famous in his own right until after his father's death. People would often greet Douglas by noting that he was the son of General MacArthur and he would joke that "he has that privilege."
    • In the first instance, because the overhaul of the article grew out of a project to fix up the Medal of Honor winner pages. It was decided that being one of two father-and-son Medal of honor winners was more notable than being one of several five-star generals or theater commanders. His multiple Distinguished Service Crosses would make him notable were it not for the other stuff he had done. (This has not stopped some editors from querying his notability though.) However, it is also there to refute a bizarre myth that he was a coward. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My attempt to trim this back in the lead was reverted quick smart. 124.176.24.14 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Random find of redundancy? Why "decided to award" rather than just "awarded"?

For his leadership in the defense of the Philippines, General Marshall decided to award MacArthur the Medal of Honor, the decoration for which he had twice previously been nominated.

  • SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because, at least nominally, the Medal was awarded by the Secretary of War and not the Chief of Staff. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am finding the text more focused on MacArthur now, with less general info on the battles and War, so the prose reductions seem to have been effective, but why is the {{main}} template still in use? "Main" is used when this article is a summary of that article: is that true in every case? If not, a different template should be used (further detail, see also, etc.). Since this article focuses on MacArthur, is it truly a summary of those articles, or do those articles provide additional detail on the battles, wars, etc? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have changed them all to "Further information" except for the one on his dismissal. I was undecided about the one on the occupation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update

  • I have hacked, slashed and burned through the overlink problems and spruced up the online references with publishers and more reliable sources etc. Also some minor and picky wording. --Brad (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the red link for First Captain, and asked an editor who knows both the current and several former First Captains to write the article for me. Hawkeye7 (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [51].

Masako Katsura[edit]

Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked hard to get this article up to snuff. It passed GA and a peer review was archived and all concerns identified have been addressed. Were this promoted, it would be Wikipedia's first billiards-related FA. The subject area is difficult because sourcing on many topics is too sparse to write an article that would meet the comprehensive standard. I have written seven GAs in the area but all were a struggle to find material. Here, though I had no biographies on her to write from, I was able to mine from hundreds of newspaper articles (and few other sources). I have scoured everything I can locate for the material present, with a little help from the fine people over at WikiProject Japan. I am aware that having three fair use images included may be seen as a problem, though I think each one adds to the article. The subject may be a little arcane for some of you, so I hope the three explanatory footnotes I added to provide context (in response to peer review comments) will help. I think she's a fascinating subject and hope you think so too.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • images none of the non-free images meet wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's pretty cryptic Fasach Nua. In what way do you believe they do not meet the NFCC?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image you refer me to see (actually, my own upload) as a free equivalent is not equivalent at all. The FU image is of her in competition, in an international championship, in the U.S., with spectators visible, dressed in elegant, occidental clothing as mentioned in the text, in a recognizable shooting form (stance), with a stalking, intent focus on her face, with an in-game shot in front of her, and is of her alone, in spotlight. The "free equivalent" does not begin to convey the same meaning, aura or feel to the viewer. The other image is a casual snap of her in Japan in a kimono in a casual setting and casual game just lagging for the break, with two others present and with her face downturned and relaxed. In short, far from being equivalent, other than sharing the same person, the two images couldn't be more dissimilar.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both show playing billards. They are equivalent. IMO, fair use is still violated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As simple an un-nuanced as that huh? I will bow to a consensus on this but we disagree.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:1952 world chart.jpg: "No free equivalent" is violated. Can be converted into text/table based on the content of the image.
  • Though I do not think there can be any true equivalent—the form the chart took, its handwritten nature conveying that it was filled out in real time as the competition progressed, and its age darkening and fading provided information separate and apart from the tournament standing numbers it contained—I have nevertheless replaced it with a chart I created, emulating the form of the original. I agree that the extra information, though present, is probably not enough for valid fair use.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should study the image and the context it provides in the article a bit closer before making such an absolutist pronouncement. I think it significantly increases readers understanding and its absence would indeed be detrimental to that understanding. On the more general side, the simple fact that this shows there was advertising in newspapers for these exhibitions is information the article doesn't convey, but far more significantly, the headline ("WOMAN BILLIARD STAR") is very important. It conveys viscerally, in a way that reams of text may not, the true difference in gender roles of the time; this was a really unusual thing, a WOMAN BILLIARD STAR! wow!; what's next, women doctors? CEOs? astronauts?. Parenthetically, today, at least in the U.S., women are bigger stars in cuesports than are the men (the men's pool organizations have been splintered and squabbling for years, while the women's side has been running a well-oiled machine).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No copyrighted image is necessary for this. Create an image in Inkspace/Paint based on the ad, if you want to include it. "No free equivalent" is still violated.--Redtigerxyz Talk 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, we disagree. Free equivalency, as you've changed your initial reasoning to talk about, does not appear to me to have any application. This is not a chart or map that can just be redrawn.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Wow, she must have been very reclusive if they don't even know what year she died. Stonemason89 (talk) 21:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • She moved back to Japan in 1990 and remember that despite her fame in the 1950s, this was 40 years later and she had been living in the U.S. for all that time. I enlisted the help of WikiProject Japan and that is the only reason I was able to find the "Katsura Memorial tournament held in Japan in 2002 that confirmed her death sometime prior. Up until I was provided that source, I couldn't even confirm whether she was alive or dead.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you read Japanese? If not, you may be able to find someone who can search Japanese language newspapers for some report of her death. It seems likely that if she was considered prominent enough for a memorial tournament, some paper would have published some mention of her death. Everyking (talk) 05:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, if you'll look at the thread I started at WikiProject Japan (reproduced on the article's talk page) I asked for help with all of this stuff, including her death details specifically. People apparently looked and were not able to find anything more. Still, I imagine someone knows how to find the information; maybe there's something like a Japanese equivalent of the U.S.'s Social Security Death Index. But I'm not sure what I can do further than what I have (and no, I don't read or speak a word). Once I was provided her Japanese name, I did Google Web, News and Book searches in Japanese and used machine translation to see if there was anything useful, and there was precious little.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, maybe it isn't possible to find that information. But I noticed you're citing the sentence "Katsura returned to Japan in or about 1990 to live with her sister, Noriko, where she said she planned to live out her days." to a source published in 1983. Everyking (talk) 09:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Egad. Good catch. Please rest assured I got the information right. The mistake was that I switched the reference (by the same author). It's from Byrne's Advanced Technique in Pool and Billiards which is from 1990, wherein he states "recently her niece arranged for her return to Japan where she plans to spend the rest of her years with her sister Noriko..." It's fixed.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have asked the people at the Japan WikiProject if they can think of any way to track down her date of death. Though I asked before, it was buried among a larger request. I thought maybe asking a focused question might yield results. The post is here.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"after 1990" is too vague. Even if she is alive today, she will die after 1990. At least limit the year to death to a period, between yr x to yr y --Redtigerxyz Talk 03:11, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing against saying "between 1990 and 2002" but let's see what others think as MOS:DOB suggests this as the proper format.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions Are her younger siblings alive? Did they have children? Can they be located?. Were they world-class players also?. It looks like SI has an article on Noriko Katsura also - what does that say?...Modernist (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: "Katsura's two younger sisters, Noriko and Tadako, also won the women's straight rail championship [of Japan]." So yes, they were both world class players. I never found a source which even disclosed her brother's name and no mention of his involvement in the game. I looked for and found no information on Tadako other than the one mention above. Noriko apparently had quite a career at the game, though nothing like Masako's. Noriko was apparenlty alive at the time of the memorial tournament (per one of the users who's been helping me via WikiProject Japan). The text of the memorial tournament page also mentions that Noriko had a son, Kazushige, who was also a billiards player and is also deceased. I don't know of any other relatives. I don't know any useful way I could contact them, especially given the language barrier. Even if they spoke English, I'm not sure what action I could take. I have had no response to my follow-up post at WikiProject Japan. As for Sports Illustrated, I had looked at that before. It's a photograph of Noriko on page 5 of the February 20, 1956 issue with the caption: "Japanese billiardist, Noriko Katsura, lines up shot in Manila exhibition." The photograph appears in a round up of sports; there is no article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update. A Japanese speaking user has gone above and beyond the call and tracked down her date of birth (1/2/1913 in Tokyo) and of death (2/7/95 in Tokyo), but it was through personal contact with a relative so, unfortunately, it's original research that can't be used unless confirmed through a published source. The user advises me me that searches in Japanese using this information did not reveal any corroboration. I have searched in English too and found bupkis.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why not simply say - Unconfirmed reports have said that she died in 1995 (adding a note to the effect that there has to date been no conclusive documentation found)...Modernist (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been thinking about this and I cannot see how this is different from any other unverifiable, original research a drive by IP adds to an article, saying they learned the fact from a private fount that cannot be checked against an already published source. Qualifying it as unconfirmed in text does not divorce it from its nature.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Interesting article, but I see some noticeable over-citation issues, among other things. I read through a good part of the page to find the issues commented on below:

  • In the lead, I was left wondering if the exhibition game link should be moved up to near the end of the first paragraph, where it sees its first use.
  • Emigration to the U.S.: "she gave a private exhibition for Cochran who wanted to make sure she was as good as reported before finalizing the invitation." Feels like a comma is missing from the middle of this.
  • Details of the 1952 tournament: Is the full run-down of the finishers really necessary in the prose? It feels like this is trying to make her finish seem impressive, when it isn't necessary to do that at all. A woman finishing seventh in a men's world championship needs nothing else to be impressive. Also, if someone wants to know the results there's a standing sheet right there.
  • Can you clarify whether you are talking about the the two sentences at the end of the section where I provide the final standings, or the entire section where I give the results of each of Katsura's matches?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well since you haven't returned, I think you mean the last two sentences so let me address that. It seems to me that when you have gone through a substantial analysis of what occurred at a tournament, detailed the players involved, where they're from, the format, and so on, not providing the ultimate standings seems to me an essential piece of information that if it wasn't present, would beg for resolution. In other words, I think it's necessary. There's no gloss in the text on her standing., I simply list each player's final standing, and I don't see how that comes across as an attempt to make her more impressive. She came in seventh out of ten and that's what it says in I think neutral language.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was what I meant. Yes, I see what you're saying, but how much of what other players did is appropriate for an article on Masako Katsura? On a second look, I suppose the standings aren't that much of a problem. However, I did find the following text while peeking at the prose again: "On the last day Harold Worst and Ezequiel Navarra ended in a tie with a playoff to be held, initially to 60 points, but the World Billiard Association decided 60 points was not enough for a true test and, with their consent, raised the tiebreaker format to 350 points. Worst ultimately prevailed, sewing up the win on October 25, 1954." How much of this is relevant for an article on another player? Do we really need to know the tiebreaker format for a playoff Katsura didn't participate in? I feel like this would fit better in articles about Worst and Navarra, or on the event itself. For this article, you could just say that Worst beat Navarra in a playoff, if you want to provide final standings. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have a point. But I think there's a balancing act that would not be served by just "Worst beat Navarra in a playoff". While we shouldn't go too far afield in focus, I do think it's important to provide enough that the reader who attaches themselves to the story isn't provided so little on side matters that they would feel cheated if they knew the full story. I have shortened the offending description considerably (diff). Thanks for all your comments thus far.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this section, there are a couple lapses into magazine/newspaper-type prose, which could stand to be toned down. Notably, I see "Matsuyama squeaked out a win from his protege with a nail biting 50 to 48 finish" and "Katsura shook off the beating and pulled out a win".
  • Exhibition tours: I see a few examples of over-citation here. In the first paragraph of the section, there are four straight uses of reference 51; while the first is for a quote, the next two cites from it could be cut easily, without compromising verifiability. Also, reference 17 gets a massive amount of use in the following paragraphs, and I see some over-citing there as well. In particular, you don't need to use it both directly before and after the block quote.
  • Immediately afterward, references 8 and 53 are used nine times combined in a paragraph. At least several of the cites are redundant and could be removed, leaving those later in what text is being cited. Are match results that controversial as to require a cite for each sentence? We have high citation standards here, but we merely demand that all content be cited; if several consecutive sentences are cited by one source, that's usually fine (quotes and contentious items should be cited directly, of course).

I really think the citations should be looked at throughout the article, to see if any can be safely removed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In every place where a citation repeats, I have eliminated every prior iteration in the same paragraph except where a quote or a different source is interspersed, thereby eliminated 38 citations.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: as you have elected to show access dates for hardprint online sources, you need to be fully consistent: [29] lacks access date at present. Otherwise, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 16:45, 11 May 2010 [52].

The Author's Farce[edit]

Nominator(s): NocturneNoir (talk · contribs) Ottava Rima (talk · contribs)

Ah, the Henry Fielding plays... This has been a long project and collaboration between Ottava Rima (talk · contribs), myself, and many others. After failing the first FAC (linked above), the project lost steam, but I'd like to think that we're starting up again. After the first FAC, the article was copyedited by both Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) and lightly by Tony1 (talk · contribs). Please enjoy. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links and no external links. Ucucha 19:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Images seem appropriately licensed, why was the page chosen for the infobox rather than the cover? Fasach Nua (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I don't know why this has attracted so little attention at this FAC. It's a good subject; I will be back soon with some detailed comments; in the meantime I hope others will read it. Brianboulton (talk) 18:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to support: In the main this is very well done. I have not finished my readthrough yet, but here are a few mainly minor points from the earlier sections:-

  • Lead prose
    • Awkward construction: "The Little Theatre allowed Fielding the freedom to experiment with his plays and to alter the traditional comedy genre where the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, which had rejected Fielding several times, did not." This could be rearranged to: "The Little Theatre—unlike the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane which had rejected him several times—allowed Fielding the freedom to experiment with his plays and to alter the traditional comedy genre." (or maybe you can devise something better?)
    • Instead of repeating the title, the third paragraph could, without ambiguity, begin "The play..."
    • The words "When it was discussed" seem unnecessary
  • Plot
    • The nature of The Pleasures of the Town as a puppet play should be made clear when the title is first mentioned.
    • The wording "abuses against Nonsense" should be in quotes as this is not a normal everyday expression.
  • Source
    • You should mention that Theophilus Cibber was Colley's son.
    • It would be useful to have an indication of the present-day equivalent value of £13, which was a not insignificant sum in 1729. Measuringworth.com gives a figure of £1,760 on the basis of relative purchasing power.
    • What was the Scriblerus Club? (I see it is linked and explained in the next section - this should be brought forward)
  • Themes
    • "rejection from the Theatre Royal" → "rejection by the Theatre Royal"? And then "his being forced back..."
    • Although present tense in this section is generally correct, it seems wrong here: "...proves beneficial because it allows him..."
    • Pseudonyms ("Scriblerus Secundus") should be in quotes
    • Sentence needs more punctuation to remove ambiguity: "During Fielding's time, theatre comedy was a standardized genre with set structures frequently used by playwrights including Molière."

Will conclude tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since Malleus made several fixes before I could jump in (thanks Malleus!), I just wanted to drop a few comments.
    • The words "When it was discussed" seem unnecessary. I changed this in response to Tony1's comment on my talkpage: "... was a critical success", but then we're told it was largely ignored by theatre critics for hundreds of years? Seems contradictory, so perhaps a change of wording to remove the tension? And "its effect on Fielding's career" ... positive effect? I guess it's clear from the previous statements in the lead, though. Hopefully, Malleus's change reconciles both.
    • The wording "abuses against Nonsense" should be in quotes as this is not a normal everyday expression. Nonsense is a character, so "abuses against Nonsense" is more of an action than a set-phrase. The direct quote from the play is "Murdertext: For abusing Nonsense, Sirrah" and "Murdertext: Verily I smell a great deal of A--bomination and Prophanes--a Smell of Brimstone offendeth my Nostrils, a Puppet-Show is the Devil's-house, and I will burn it--shall you abuse Nonsense, when the whole Town supports it?" Therefore, I've changed the mention into a direct quote, which should clarify matters.
    • You should mention that Theophilus Cibber was Colley's son. Not entirely sure how this is relevant, but I've done it and moved the wikilink.
    • What was the Scriblerus Club? (I see it is linked and explained in the next section - this should be brought forward) Themes is now above source, so this should no longer be an issue.
    • Most other comments not directly addressed here have been fixed. Cheers and thanks for the review. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding points: (Brianboulton (talk))

  • Performance history: On the whole I found that the prose of this section read far from smoothly. There are rather too many details of performances, mingled with mentions of other plays which I personally found very confusing. I wonder if it is possible to summarise the performance history more generally? There are also specific prose queries:-
    • "The 18 March 1730 Daily Post and in the 21 March 1730 Weekly Medley and Literary Journal ran notices..." The word "in" needs to be removed.
    • "premiere", not "premier"
    • "...ran for 41 nights, eight of the performances during the three weeks following Easter." I found this a bit confusing; normally when you say a play ran for x nights you mean consecutive nights, but in this case, eight performances during the three weeks following Easter suggests that performances were intermittent. Would it be better to say it ran for 41 performances?
    • "alongside of..." "of" is unnecessary
    • "and was later billed for a revival on 3 July 1730." Does this refer to The Author's Farce or to the combination just mentioned?
    • "Between the November and January..." Delete "the"
    • "There were even benefit shows..." Why "even". and for whose benefit?
    • "A revised version of The Author's Farce was started towards the end of 1733..." Passive voice. Does it mean that Fielding started to write a revised version?
  • Critical response
    • "It is impossible to know how the play stood without Tom Thumb, or if the third act's puppet show The Pleasures of the Town was the most popular feature of the play..." Why is it "impossible" to know these things? Would it be more appropriate to say "There are no reports of how ... or whether the third act..."?
    • "Later in 2002, " - comma required, thus: "Later, in 2002,..."

That is all I have. I look forward to upgrading to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the late replies.
    • The vague bits are due to sources, which are also correspondingly vague. I cannot answer any of the questions you have asked simply because there isn't any data to answer them with. I have fixed all other outstanding issues.
    • I'd argue that the performance history is important enough to not generalize. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 19:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are still a few points unaddressed from my list (the others are all resolved):-
        • In the Plot section we still have "Luckless puts on the puppet show", wording which at that point is entirely unexplained to the reader. It needs to be something like "Luckless puts on his play as a puppet show..."
        • The incidence of passive voice, noted above, is unaltered.
        • I don't like "It is impossible to know..." It sounds too assertive, and you can't know that it is impossible to know. Why not adopt my suggested "softer" version? Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is pretty good. There are just a few things I think need attention though:
  • The order of the last two sections (Critical response and Performance history) seems wrong. Critical response starts off by telling us that "It is impossible to know how the play stood without Tom Thumb ...", but we don't learn that the play was put on with Tom Thumb, or even that Tom Thumb was another play until the following Performance history section. I'd suggest reversing the order. If not, then Tom Thumb needs to be explained earlier.
  • From the Plot section: "This leads to the third act, in which Luckless puts on the puppet show, portrayed by actual actors rather than puppets, to make money." I'm not at all sure why "to make money" has been tagged on to the end of that sentence. It's ambiguous in any event. Did he put on the puppet show to make money, or did he use actual actors instead of puppets to make money?
  • From the Critical response section: "Beyond a few minor references, there is very little further mention of the play from the 18th century." Should this be "during the 18th century"? "From" seems a little ambigous, as it could alternatively mean "from the 18th century [onwards]".

Malleus Fatuorum 17:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article has a lot of good information, but I think that the prose still needs more work to bring that information forward. Also, there are a few places that need explanation or elaboration.

Prose

Here are a few examples taken from the lead that show general prose problems with the article:

  • The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and his efforts to make money by writing plays - We need a brief description of Luckless, such as "the hero" or "the central character". This kind of problem recurs throughout the article - the reader is assumed to have knowledge of the topic at hand or understand the structure of the play too well.
  • This problem still exists in the article. Note that the second sentence is about the theatre and why Fielding staged his play there, but this is before we know about Fielding's problems with the theatres or the experimental nature of the play.
  • The first and second acts describe Harry Luckless's attempts at romance and his efforts to make money by writing plays - "attempts at romance" is a bit vague - it can mean both that he is looking for a relationship and writing a romance. The prose often needs to be made more precise.
  • I still have some quibbles with individual words, but not enough to list them all out. At least, not today! I have to go grade final papers! :) Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Through the use of a play within a play, Fielding satirised the London theatre scene, especially the focus on turning a profit and the debasing of the literary public with new genres. - The prose is often wordy (you don't need phrases like "through the use of" and "the focus on").
  • I'm still seeing a few problems with this, but I can go through the article on my own sometime over the weekend and work on reducing them (e.g. " However, the journal does mock the nature of the play as a farce and the quality of the Little Theatre.") Please leave a note on my talk page reminding me to do this! Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • especially the focus on turning a profit and the debasing of the literary public with new genres - Unclear - I think that the writers assumed knowledge on the part of the reader here.
  • By using a play within a play, Fielding satirized the London theatre scene's focus on turning a profit and debasing the literary public with new genres. - Do you mean "debasing literature by introducing new genres solely for the sake of profit" or something like this? I still find this sentence confusing.
  • Fielding critiqued society as a whole and touched on issues of sexuality, politics, and social problems. - This needs another sentence - what kinds of critique did Fielding offer? Give the reader a hint!
  • The "Sources" section appears to be a prose list rather than carefully structured paragraphs. For example, the first paragraph begins with details about a comparison to a Farquhar play and then moves into biographical elements. The second paragraph also discusses biographical elements. Both paragraphs mention landladies. Each paragraph needs to have a coherent topic (perhaps a landlady paragraph?) as well as a topic sentence that introduces it.
  • The last four paragraphs of "Critical reception" are a series of quotations. This material needs to be molded into a narrative that the reader can follow. I would also suggest paraphrasing some of the quotations. Jumping between so many different voices is difficult.
  • This is the most serious issue remaining, in my opinion, as the last section of the article is simply a list of quotations in paragraph form. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information or clarification needed
  • This experimentation, beginning with The Author's Farce, introduced aspects that were common to many of his later comedies. - Please add an explanation of what these aspects were.
  • Fielding's use of the pseudonym connects his comedic style to that found in the writings of the Scriblerus Club members and reveals their influence on his new style. - Please explain what the style of the Scriblerus Club was. Listing the names of the writers won't help most readers.
  • This is still unclear - what are elements of Swift's, Pope's, and Gay's style that Fielding was incorporating in order to mock them? Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fielding wasn't attacking Swift et al, and the text doesn't say that he was, only that he incorporated elements of their style into his own work. One example is given: "... such as incorporating the elements being attacked into the work. Fielding thus allows the audience to believe that he is poking fun at others, less discriminating than themselves, and less able to distinguish good art from bad." Malleus Fatuorum 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read this sentence as he was incorporating elements of their style in order to mock them (it is extremely confusing). Note, however, that nowhere in the article are these "elements" explained - the reader already has to know what Swift's, Pope's, and Gay's styles are to understand what is being incorporated and even that is not particularly helpful because Fielding wasn't incorporating every element of their styles. This part of the article - on the play's style - needs a bit more elucidation and clarity. Awadewit (talk) 23:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major element of their style Fielding adopted was the incorporation of the thing they were ridiculing into the satire. Hence the play within a play in the third act. Hopefully that's explained a little more clearly now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • During Fielding's time, theatre comedy was a standardized genre with set structures frequently used by playwrights including Molière. - Please explain what some of these set structures were. Also, why are we mentioning Moliere here?
  • It does not rely heavily on rhetorical wit, but Fielding does incorporate dramatic incongruities, such as comic actions and humorous language during scenes that should be serious - An example of this would be nice.
  • As for the ending, the blending of the fictional world and the real world destroys the various frames of the narrative and represents the nonsense common in contemporary British society - That Fielding believed was common?
Other
  • Should the other plays mentioned be redlinked?
  • I am still wondering about this. Has User:Raul654 written his essay about the necessity of redlinks? Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like Brianboulton, I was not terribly interested in the details of the performance history, but I think that they need to be retained. I reread them and each one notates a change in the text of the play, which is extremely important. This information will be useful to someone.

I checked the MLA database for material on The Author's Farce. In my opinion, this article covers the fundamental scholarship on the play (I recognized the names of famous Fielding scholars in this article, for example). There is more available, obviously, but whether or not to use it is a judgment call. I look forward to striking this oppose. (I am only editing Wikipedia on the weekends, so I will check this FAC next weekend. If you want me to look at it sooner, please email me. Thanks!) Awadewit (talk) 05:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was emailed to go over the article again, so I am doing so. Awadewit (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said previously, everything that can be clarified has been clarified; the sources are vague in everything else, most of which would constitute original research if I added it in. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 21:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'm pretty sure I could find this material if I had the time to go to the library and look for it - it is all common knowledge amongst 18th-century scholars (if we didn't need citations, I could just add it in myself). Unfortunately, as it is finals week, I don't have time to do that. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: The William Warner book (or article) lacks publisher and date information. Otherwise, sources look okay. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing details added. Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC) diff.[reply]

Lisa Simpson[edit]

Nominator(s): Scorpion0422 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third nomination for the page, which last failed two weeks ago. I actually felt that I had addressed the opposition to the article, but one opposer did not return to the page, and the other stopped coming back after a few exchanges (in both cases, I asked on their talk pages if their concerns were addressed). Anywaym I feel that the page has improved from where it was a month ago, with copyediting provided by the great Scartol. Enjoy! -- Scorpion0422 02:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. Ucucha 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 02:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

currently failing criteria 3 File:Lisasmall2.gif & File:Lisa_Simpson.png should be combined to minimise use of non free content per wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the gif should be moved to the infobox? That would be rather unusual considering every other Simpsons character page uses a non-animated full body shot of the character. Both images have very specific purposes: one is to show the appearance of the character, the other aids the text in explaining the design of the character. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 02:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to tell what the character looks like from the design drawing? If so, the first image is redundant, and thus fails wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The design drawing shows the character in an unusual pose, and just half of her body. -- Scorpion0422 II (Talk) 11:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is an editorial decision how to rectify this problem, however as it stands it fails FAC Fasach Nua (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there is no problem. Considering that we're talking about an animated character, images that show her design are extremely important, so why is such a horrible thing to have three (gasp!) non-free images? -- Scorpion0422 01:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because we have purpose Fasach Nua (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so, but another purpose is to provide the best information possible, and all three images aid the article in conveying that information. -- Scorpion0422 21:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inappropriate use of non-free content Fasach Nua (talk) 05:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I ask Fasach Nua to review File:Lisasmall2.gif directly. The file has illustrative animation, and for some reason, the animation does not take place in the article body. There is discussion about the matter, and it seems to be a development issue. Once it is resolved, we'd see the animation take place in the article body. Are you still opposing the animation? Just wanting to make sure you're not just looking at the non-animated GIF. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward Just a few comments from me. Overall the article looks pretty good (image issue aside).

  • "He writes, "In so many cases Lisa is presented not simply as a prodigy but as preternaturally wise, the fondness for Itchy and Scratchy and Corey seem to be highlighted, taking on greater significance." - I know this is a quote, but this sentence is a bit confusing. Because she is wise, a violent cartoon show is therefore highlighted? Perhaps I am missing something. I'd suggest paraphrasing him to be more clear about just what he means.
    • I felt that the second sentence in the quote made it a bit clear: "Lisa is portrayed as the avatar of logic and wisdom, but then she also worships Corey so she's 'no better'", but I suppose I could try to make it a bit better. Basically, it means that Lisa enjoying children's toys and programs is important to her character, because she is portrayed as being very wise with a "better than thou" attitude. But, her participation in normal childhood activities makes her more normal. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, environmentalist website The Daily Green honored Lisa's role in The Simpsons Movie with one of its inaugural "Heart of Green" awards, which "recognize those who have helped green go mainstream."" - needs a citation
    • The citation is the next sentence over. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The wrote "young Lisa Simpson has inspired a generation to wear their hearts on their sleeves and get educated, and involved, about global issues, from justice to feminism and the environment."", maybe first word should be "they"?
  • I notice some of the references are actually linking back to Wikipedia articles on The Simpson episodes.. The article is not actually using the content of those Wikipedia articles as sources, right?
    • No, it's using the episodes themselves as sources, links to the articles about those episodes were provided so users can quickly look them up.
  • Ref #15 needs an access date -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ortved, John (2009). The Simpsons: An Uncensored, Unauthorized History. Greystone Books. pp. 248–250. ISBN 978-1-55365-503-9." - why are there page numbers on this reference? They are not the same numbers listed in the citations.
    • That was my mistake, I forgot to delete the page numbers. -- Scorpion0422 18:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • References check out
  • Alt text present
  • Prose is great

Neutral, this is really a great article, and the only thing holding it back, in my opinion, is the image issue. The article can only utilize a single image of Lisa by my understanding of WP:FAIRUSE. Under Fair Use Policy 3(a), it reads "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not [to be] used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." One full length image of Lisa can adequately convey her appearance. On that point I have to agree with the other opposers. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image in "Design" is different from the image in the infobox. It is animated, but there is a development issue preventing the animation from playing in the article body. Go to the file directly: File:Lisasmall2.gif. Do you still oppose even with this illustrative animation? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I don't understand where the problem is. Every image in the article has its purpose. I think the article meets the FA criteria. --Morten Haan (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do still oppose. Even though they are a different medium (sort of) they are still of the same subject. The gif provides a superior demonstration of the subject, but they are each essentially demonstrating the same thing. Three non-free images showing basically the same thing is not minimal usage. From any one of those images, I can determine her appearance and understand what the text is talking about when speaking of her unusual head features, colour, etc. I don't need all three of them to understand that. Therefore, it is not using the minimal amount of non-free content. Maybe I am mistaken, but is there an important thing that the article would loose if it only displayed the best of those three images? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reviewing the the other Simpson articles, which are featured, I do see your point now. I changing to neutral on this. I still think it is bordering on a Fair Use issue, but will not oppose over it. Otherwise I do find the article to great. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't look at any of the above, so pardon if any of this has been pointed out.
    • After appearing on The Tracey Ullman Show for three years, the Simpson family began their own series on Fox, which debuted on December 17, 1989.
      • That could be written better, since it suggests the family is real. It's just a non-universe sort of thing.
    • I think the "Role in the Simpsons" section is a bit short. The second paragraph of the lede (top of the article) and the fourth paragraph of "Role in the Simpsons" cover similar content, and yet the "role" section isn't any longer. Could you pad that section out more?
    • In the "Design" section, should it be noted that she changed her hair in some episodes? (The President Wore Pearls comes to mind). It's your decision, just something that popped out.
    • For the "Voice" section, it says that Smith read two lines for Bart and was then told she done. Did she really get the job for Lisa based on those two lines? Or, was she called back?
    • Lisa plays the baritone saxophone, and many episodes include that as a plot device.
      • As a fan of the show, that's not really true. The saxophone is used occasionally at best as a plot devise.
    • Under reception, you only mention the positive reception, which is more broadly about the show. I know many people who name Lisa as their least-favorite character. Surely there is some encyclopediac merit to include the opposing viewpoint. Hurricanehink (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now.
    • Non-free images are improperly handled, with little in the way of specific rationales to justify their inclusion (they appear to have cut-and-paste requirements, and some fields are improperly used).
    • In many cases primary sources are being used improperly in synthesis. Examples: "Her brightness manifests itself in various ways." is followed by current citations 56, 57, and 58, all primary sources. "Although she is intellectually gifted, Lisa experiences typical childhood issues, sometimes requiring adult intervention"→primary sources. Most of the opening subsection is based entirely on primary sources. These are going beyond simple statements and into POV interpretation; frankly, if it can't be sourced to a reliable source, it probably shouldn't be in the article.
      • First of all, ref 58 is Planet Simpson, a reliable third party book. 56 covers "Lisa is said to have an IQ of 156", and why does that need a third party source? I'm sure the episode itself can be trusted for something like that. Same with 57, which sources "in "They Saved Lisa's Brain" (season ten, 1999) she becomes a member of the Springfield chapter of Mensa". As for the adult intervention statement, it's actually sourced to the Planet Simpson citation right after the episode one. I tend to try to avoid using citations on every sentence, and sometimes I'll use one for several. In this case, the episode statement was stuck in the middle, and I forgot to fix the sourcing. Also, could you please give some examples of the "POV interpretation" you see? -- Scorpion0422 03:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:06, 4 May 2010 [53].

Hurricane Ida (2009)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hurricane Ida was a rare November hurricane that affected areas from Costa Rica to Maine. Ida is only one of a handful of hurricanes to enter the Gulf of Mexico during November. Throughout the storm's path, it produced heavy rains and gusty winds. Only one fatality was directly linked to the storm in the United States; however, six other deaths took place as a result of a nor'easter which formed as a result of Ida's dissipation. Overall, Ida affected more regions than any other storm during the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season and was the only one to make landfall at hurricane intensity. All thoughts and comments are welcome, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 15:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  • Some sentences are a bit verbose or have redundant words, meaning the quality isn't quite brilliant. Here are some examples that could use tweaking.
    • Only voluntary evacuations were issued in the states and most schools and non-emergency offices were closed on November 9 and 10 in the region.
    • Hundreds of homes were damaged and destroyed and roughly 40,000 people were left homeless. - can you find a way to avoid "and destroyed and"?
    • Very warm sea surface temperatures ahead of the system would allow for substantial intensification; however, wind shear over the area quickly increased, resulting in modest strengthening. - just say what it did and why. Even I had trouble with that sentence.
    • to rapidly weaken - no split infinitives.
    • . However - sentences shouldn't start with "However". Either rewrite it so "However" isn't the first word, or replace the preceding period with a semicolon. You do this occassionally in the article.
    • By the morning of November 10, all convection associated with Ida was displaced to the northeast and the forward motion of the storm slowed substantially. - again, avoid the passive voice, but this sentence is a bit of a run-on. I'm curious, why did it slow down in the northern Gulf of Mexico?
  • Overall, avoid using the passive voice (was used, were killed, etc). In the lede alone, I see ten examples of passive voice in the lede alone. Wherever possible, rewrite the sentence to use active voice.
  • What was the status of the missing people in Nicaragua? Shouldn't we know by now if they were killed or not?
  • In the Met. history, why did it move so slowly when it first formed?
  • In the 2nd paragraph of the met. history, "Early the next day" - unless that follows a sentence that mentions a date, you should always rewrite the new date, as in this instance.
  • You should mention the Saffir-Simpson scale when you say "Category 1", since no one knows what a Category 1 is. Alternatively, you can say it became a hurricane without saying the Category. Later, however, you say Category 2 with a similar lack of context.
  • When it made landfall in Nicaragua, you should write the time, since "Several hours later" has no context with "Early the next day", since neither are definitive.
  • You said there was wind shear when it reached the Carib, although you don't say how it was able to reintensify info a hurricane in the Yucatan Channel.
  • the NHC issued a tropical storm warning for the entire coastline of Nicaragua and the nearby islands of San Andrés and Providencia - I don't think that's true, actually. The NHC only issues tropical storm warnings for the United States.
  • The most severe damage took place in Karawala and Corn Island... there, 500 homes... were destroyed... On Corn Island, 40 homes were destroyed - so, between Karawala and Corn Island, 500 homes were destroyed, but in actuality, 460 of them were in Karawala? That's confusing, and could use explanation. Also, later, you say "Final damage assessments from the Nicaraguan Government for mainland Nicaragua ... stated that 283 homes were destroyed". How can that be, if 500 homes were destroyed between Karawala and Corn Island? Consistency is needed in the article, even if sources are inconsistent.
  • Are there any more meteorological details? Most storm articles have rainfall first, followed by wind reports (surely there must have been some), mudslides, and flooding. Also, you say "Rainfall produced by the storm was significantly less than anticipated according to satellite derived estimates" - it'd be good if you said how much satellites estimated.
  • I haven't found any reports of winds in my searches other than the landfall winds. I've moved the rainfall first and expanded it a bit too. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was there damage in Honduras?
  • That's a good start. Let me know when you address these. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the very useful comments Hink, I'll continue working on them throughout the day. As for the passive voice issues, can you give me some help with how to correct them? I'm still rather lost on what to do. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. For the passive voice, it's rather simple, just rewrite the sentence so the ordering is better. Instead of
"Areas from Panama to Maine were affected by either the storm or the subsequent nor'easter."
It should be...
"Either the storm or the subsequent nor'easter affected areas from Panama to Maine."
Note how the sentence is much more engaging. Instead of "Florida was affected by the storm", just "The storm affected Florida." Notice when you reword it, it can sound more boring. If it's just a simple change of wording, that means the original wording was just as boring and non-informative. You want the most concise wording possible in an article. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a passive/active voice issue, but the proposed revision of that sentence seems to imply the opposite of the intended meaning (not that that areas were affected by one or the other, but that we're not sure which one affected the areas from Panama to Maine). –Juliancolton | Talk 21:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was just one example for how to fix passive voice. It's up to the author to decide when it's best and when it isn't. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment.
    • "After slowly tracking eastward for several hours, the remnants of Ida dissipated" - that implies the wrong thing. Just say the surface circulation dissipated.
  • Many of my above comments haven't been met yet, so I'll have to oppose for now. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Some suggestions and questions...
  • The 80 mph bit appears twice in three sentences (as does a link to Nicaragua, which, incidentally, is linked five times).
  • A nor'easter developed from its remnants, which affected much of the eastern United States. - This wording is inconsistent with the TCR, and indeed the rest of the article. The nor'easter didn't develop from the remnants, it simply involved them.
  • Just curious, why do you link Maine and Panama but not other U.S. states or countries?
  • Only voluntary evacuations were issued in the states and most schools and non-emergency offices were closed on November 9 and 10 in the region. - It seems a bit informal to refer to it as "the states" (at least IMO).
"the states" refers to the states mentioned in the preceeding sentence. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I copyedited that sentence a bit. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several people were reportedly missing in Nicaragua after the storm wrought severe damage to coastal towns; however, post-storm reports denied these claims. - Too detailed for the lead I think.

Otherwise the lead looks good. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Karanacs 14:06, 4 May 2010 [54].

Wolf: A Journey Home[edit]

Nominator(s): -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets all of the featured article criteria. This article is currently a good article, and it has gone through a peer review during which prose issues were addressed and copy editing performed by User:Finetooth. It is a shorter article than some FAs, however it is well-researched and comprehensive, culling all reliable online and offline sources about this novel. The article is neutrally written and very stable. It follows the established Wikipedia Manual of Style and the more specific novel manual of style and all citations are done in a consistent format with all necessary details. It has a single image, which is non-free with an appropriate FUR. (I believe its preferred that I note that I am currently in the WP:WikiCup, so while it has nothing to do with this nom per se, am noting it :-) )-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? It is a picture of the first edition cover. Standard part of any article on a book to provide a visual identifier of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does this "standard" use meet FAC 3 or WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Huh? Obviously it was published outside of Wikipedia as it is available on various seller and book information websites. It fully meets WP:NFCI #1 and WP:NFCC. And yes it also meets FAC 3, easily. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Inappropriate use of non-free content, fails WP:NFCC8, hence WP:WIAFA3 Fasach Nua (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does not fail NFCC8 either, however I see you have made the same basic arguments in various FACs lately, and despite having it explained to you numerous times that it is not a violation and that consensus agrees that this is a valid fair-use, you continue to make an oppose. There is no free equivalent to a book cover, and the cover is contextually significant to the book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • Image check: the sole image of the copyrighted book cover is a valid fair use. It also has a Fair use rationale.
    • Is it to possible to add picture of the author?
    • A brief para about the author 'Asta Bowen and her other works can be added. "Bowen based the stories in Wolf: A Journey Home" does not provide much context. What is her primary profession? biologist? writer?
    • Why was the name changed? Any reasons by the author/publishers. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no free images of the author, and I cannot see justifying a non-free one when, in the end, she is a fairly unnotable person. From her website, she appears to be an English teacher at Flathead High School,[55][56] who has also written a few op-ed pieces for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer,[57] made a single sound recording of a Manx Shearwater,[58] and wrote one other work, The Huckleberry Book that "details Rocky Mountain huckleberry ecology and lore, in addition to 37 delectable recipes—from cakes to champagne" (per Amazon.com).[59] There is really nothing much to tell about her beyond that, as she doesn't include a bio in the book either, and with BLP concerns I'm not sure I'd be comfortable saying much at all if she herself doesn't say much (I think one source mentioned a husband, but that's it for personal life). Bios on the author are generally not a part of a novel/book article, though her occupation is listed in the next paragraph. And I could not find any sources discussing the name change beyond confirming it was changed. One source hinted that the book had been updated, but in comparing the two, I couldn't figure out where beyond the removal of the illustrations and the change from the original cover to one using a picture of real wolves. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reordered the development section a bit to move her history to the front. Does that help address the concerns on context? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found the answer to the rename and have added it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Afraid I don't have much to say and am not familiar enough with articles about books to support (though nor do I oppose). However, having read the article I will express that I enjoyed it. Plot summary was easy to follow. I made one incredibly minor wording change of an "as" to an "are" but I didn't spot any other little errors. As nominator acknowledges it is on the short side for a featured article, but I didn't find myself absolutely crying out to know more; ie I didn't sense any glaring omissions. Good luck with the nomination. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Charles Edward I am sorry the article has went this long without a thorough review. As you may notice there is a shortage of reviewers here lately - please considering reviewing or commenting on the of the recent other FACs. I do have some concerns about the article, and I have outlined them below.

  • General
    • In the plot section I am left with several questions. Does the article treat the wolves as sentient creatures - do they "talk" to each other? Or is it just following the life of normal animals? A single sentence at the lead of the plot section would clear this up - something like "The plot revolves around wolves who were captured and released back into the wild, and is based partially on a true story"
  • Citations needed
    • There are no citations in the entire plot summary section. The section is also not following some of the common practice for plot summaries, by using phrases like, "the book says", "the author wrote".
    • "Publishers Weekly's Sybil Steinberg called it a "powerful first novel" and a "genuinely eye-opening tale"." - uncited quote
  • Prose
    • "The wolves are kept in a human facility for a couple of months to be examined,..." perhaps it should be "humane facility"?
    • "In early winter, the wolves are sedated again and awaken to find themselves in strange high place that smells of grizzly bear with radio collars around their necks" - the place smelled like grizzley bears with radio collars? What does a radio collar smell like? lol! I hope you laugh as much as I did on that one. :) I suggest a rephrase.
    • "Chinook was later killed for continuing to hunt livestock, Timber died from a poacher" - perhaps "...killed by a poacher."
  • References
    • Ref # 2 does not seem to have any content to support its statement. It is probably also not a reliable source - its only a high school website
    • Except for reference 5, & 10-14, all the references are primary sources. This is a little worrisome. You might want to read over WP:PRIMARY and see if there is any way to replaces some of the other citations.
  • Images
    • Note: File:Hungry for Home by 'Asta Bowen.jpeg is non-free, but has an acceptable fair use rationale
    • The article is short of images. How about a picture of a gray wolf maybe? I am sure there are some good ones your could find over on the commons.

Oppose unfortunately I have to oppose for now. There are some minor prose issues, lack of images, and significant referencing issues, in my opinion. The article is pretty well wrote though, and an interesting read, good job so far and keep up the good work. The hard thing with bringing article like this through an FAC review though is the lack of good third party sources. You will have a hard time finding enough good references for a topic like this to satisfy the FA criteria, in my opinion. The good article process was developed for this very reason - accommodating articles that could probably never achieve FA quality. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that the plot summary does NOT require references, right? Per overwhelming Wikipedian consensus, the source is the novel itself and it does not require any kind of inline citation to state that. Nor is it "common practice" to say "the book says" or anything like that in a plot summary of a work. The summary makes no implication that they are sentient in terms of talking to each other, and the lead already has the summary you mentioned. I don't see how adding that sentence would "clear up" the question at all.
Your claim that the quote does not have a citation is incorrect. The citation is right there on the second sentence from the same source, however I have duplicated it for the confused. For your prose questions:
  • No, it is a HUMAN facility, as in run by humans. Whether it is "humane" or not is subjective and undetailed.
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
As for the references, yuo again seem to be very much mistaken and perhaps looking at the wrong article.
  • It supports the statement that she is a high school teacher, and it certainly is a reliable source for that.
Finally, no the article is not "short of images" nor is being overly illustrated a featured article critiera. Wikipedia articles do not need excessive decoration that have nothing to do with the topic. Randomly picturing a gray wolf does not improve the article nor would it expand the readers understanding of the topic. That is why there is an article on the gray wolf. Only references one through five are primary sources, and that is perfectly acceptable. You seem to be both unfamiliar with the general format and nature of articles on media, and some of your opposes make very basic misstatements. I find this very concerning that you would oppose with so little familiarity with the topic and while seeming to have so little understanding of even basic Wikipedia style and the FAC guidelines itself. The article is certainly able to satisfy the FA criteria and none of your opposes show any way that it does not other than the minor grammar issues noted, which were fixed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree I am not perfectly familiar with this topic, but I am very familiar with policies and guidelines. The sole MOS guideline for plot summaries is here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries, aside from WP:PLOT which is part of WP:NOT. It does actually specify that plot summaries should explain the plot from the authors perceptive.
While you are correct that consensus generally allows plot summaries to be uncited, this is allowed because the prose of the plot summary makes it clear it summarizing the book with phrases like the ones I mentioned, which do not appear in this article. Likewise there is no guideline which specifically states plot summaries are exempt from WP:V, and they must not wander into WP:OR (which this article does not). That was my reasoning behind those statements
I disagree that a image of a grey wolf would add no value to the article, quite the contrary, it would let the reader see what the subject of the book looked like. The FA criteria says an article should be "well illustrated", but this article has only a single image of the cover of the book. No image of the author, its subjects, etc.
In regard to "human facility", I was only inquiring. In that case, it should be rephrased. What kind of human facility was it, that it rather non-descript, which is the reason I thought it was a typo. I see though you say it is not detailed, so I will not worry about that one. :)
In regards to the uncited quote, it is not cited in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite#When_quoting_someone, which states "you should always add a citation when quoting published material, including the page number if there is one. The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation", my emphasis.
My opposition is based on the lack of reliable third party source. The article is almost entirely sourced from primary sources. Please don't take offense, it is just my opinion that this topic will be able to produce the type of sources needed. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offtopic discussion moved to talk. Steve T • C 15:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Sorry, but you are incorrect on the plot summary. It is fine as is. There is also the MoS re novels (and the ones re films, television, etc which also cover plots). Again I see no value added with repeating a statement from the lead and later in the article, and as no other editor has made such a request in the PR, GA, nor this FAC, it seems to be more your personal opinion than actual consensus and practice. Plot summaries do not require any sort of "phrases" you mentioned to be considered valid. This has been discussed ad nauseum in more than enough places and it will not benefit this FAC to rehash them here. If you disagree with the practice, I'd recommend bringing it up elsewhere, but as is, it is perfectly valid now. The plot is verifiable - read the book.
An image of a random gray wolf is not necessary. "Well illustrated" does not mean just add images to make it pretty. Most novel, film, television, and other media FA articles have only one image. A random gray wolf does NOT illustrate what the subject looks like. There are no pictures of any of the wolves from the novel and one gray wolf is not the same as another. They have many variations in size, color, etc. Gray wolf is the species name and not a color. We also do not put images of authors in a novel article. What the author looks like is unimportant. What a "wolf" looks like is both unimportant and basic human knowledge (and if someone really doesn't know, they can go see the article on the gray wolf to get a general idea). For the same reason we do not throw screenshots in film and television articles just to show what a "character" looks like, we do not do it for novels.
The human facility is non-descript in the novel, so it by necessary must be non-descript in our summary. The author never clarifies what kind of place it is, or even really where it is. I don't see how it can be considered a typo. If you can show that this article is somehow not utilizing a reliable source that is available, please do so, but do not opposed based on the non-existence of a source on a topic already deemed notable by Wikipedia guidelines. The FAC does NOT require an article to have a section or coverage on topic X if there are no sources. The article has some primary sources, yes, but it also includes all appropriate third party referencing where available. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:51, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In an effort to address your concerns about too many primary sources, I have added another third-party source, from a local newspaper article that I found today about it. Buried in said article is the answer to the question on the rename, which I've also added as a useful tidbit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 11:40, 2 May 2010 [60].

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on an interesting provision of the Australian Constitution. I've been a little hesitant about whether the article is FA material because it is quite short. But it is certainly comprehensive. I've gone through everything of substance that has ever been written on section 116, including Quick & Garran's seminal text from 1901. I don't think much more can be written about the subject. As the article says, the provision is (surprisingly) insignificant. It would be possible to go into the individual cases on section 116 in more detail; however, I am concerned that more discussion on the case law would give the article an overly legalistic focus. Hopefully one day comprehensive separate articles can be written about those cases. Mkativerata (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No dab links or dead external links. Ucucha 21:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, leaning towards oppose I feel that insufficient attention has been given to the prose here. There's a clear problem with the lede, which should not be one paragraph. Take for example "The Constitution of Australia commenced on 1 January 1901." I don't think "commenced" is the proper term. There are a fair number of similar malaprops, enough to make me think this article might be better off going back for peer review before coming here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I've broken up the lead. I've changed "commenced" to "took effect": I used "commenced" deliberately because that's the terminology used for legislation in Australia, but I've changed it to "took effect" here because section 4 of the Constitution speakes of the Constitution "taking effect" so that phrase is perhaps more accurate here.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. The prose does seem to be spotty in areas, and I'm mildly concerned about what seem to be opening sentences to a number of paragraphs that very likely are not "in" the following references. I'll sit back and wait for other views.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-arranged some footnotes to make it clearer that the opening sentences are supported by a footnote that follows. One or two of the opening sentences are lead-style summaries of the paragraphs that follow. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:MSH, Section 116 is repeated in several section headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (I hope). Thanks. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy at this stage.

  • Can't there be an external link to the constitution? The Section should be quoted, surely? [Ah, it is, but further down. The opening seems to be in slight conflict with it.] "The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth." Why does the lead say "from making certain laws? This is vague, when the actual text would be better.
  • "However, Section 116 is narrower than its US counterparts, and does not prohibit laws made by the States of Australia." You mean "does not prohibit the states from making such laws"? "Such" is essential.
  • "These approaches have been criticised by some academics." Who? Where is the ref.? And very briefly, on what basis? Maybe you don't need a ref in the lead, but it doesn't seem to add any substance as currently worded.
  • Not "the judiciary's narrow approach", but "the High Court's ...". Please be specific.
  • "The Federal Government has twice proposed the expansion of Section 116 ...". Which government? The Keating govt? The Chifley govt? Or do you mean "The federal parliament"? Tony (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tony. I'll make those changes. But in the meantime I think I should withdraw this nomination and do some more hard yards: if these are the problems with the lead then there will obviously be many more to follow and I should find them myself or through peer review. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review or GA nom might be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 2 May 2010 (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/May_2010&oldid=364572089"