Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/May 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 2011[edit]

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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 15:40, 30 May 2011 [1].

Portal 2[edit]

Nominator(s): MASEM (t) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely one of the most anticipated games within the last year, Portal 2 (according to reviewers) took what was a short sweet surprise of a 2-3hr game included within a larger product and managed to expand it to a full standalone sequel with unanimous praise from reviewers. And no cake.

That said, there is a lot of information about this game (it will likely exceed 200 refs at the end of the day). Its at a point where it's stable - the game's been out for a month so all the critical reviews are in, and the only thing of major change I can anticipate is the additional downloadable content that will start this summer, any additional sales figures, and the end-of-year gaming awards; none of these will impact the article to a great degree (in that, I know exactly where to put those and format those.) We're above WP:SIZE but a discussion at WT:VG on this showed there's really no good way to split off information about the article without weakening the article or subsections. One idea was the Development section like there is for Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, but we'd agreed that really didn't end up as great an article. If size is still a problem, there is likely enough to pull out the Marketing and Promotion section into its own article. We're fortunate that the major characters all can support their own articles and that info has been shuffled off there. Similarly with the Potato Sack ARG that preluded the game's release.

I've done dab and linkchecks, and a member of the LoCE has reviewed the text for copyedits. I know that there's a larger number of non-frees in this that may be of concern, but I believe all the uses are well justified under NFCC but accept any criticism towards reduce those numbers. That said I've hoped to balanced that with relevant free content. MASEM (t) 16:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there's obviously been a lot of work put into this article, but unfortunately I don't feel it currently meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate that there's a lot of information about the game available, but this article is nearly 150 kB - absolutely huge, needs to better employ summary style
  • There are some inconsistencies within the text - for example, P-Body or P-body?
  • Prose needs editing for clarity, grammar and flow. For example: "Similar to how the student team of Narbacular Drop were brought into Valve to expand their game to the basis of Portal, the team from Independent Games Festival-winning DigiPen student project Tag: The Power of Paint was hired by Valve to incorporate their game's paint mechanics into these new gels"
  • WP:MOS edits needed: hyphens/dashes, wikilinking issues, inconsistent application of possessives ("reconfigured during GLaDOS' manipulations of the component panels, leaving the player free of GLaDOS's observation"), etc
  • Some phrasings are overly colloquial or informal in tone. For example: "Portal 2 continues to challenge players"
  • The text seems to assume some level of familiarity with the game that not all readers possess. For example, what is a "personality core" or a "personality sphere"?
  • Some of the paragraphs are very large and consequently difficult to read
  • Inconsistent formatting of references - for example, refs 1 and 2 lack retrieval dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Focusing only on the first point, because I knew this might be a problem, I am trying to find a solution here. As I wrote in the summary, an informal discussion at WT:VG showed that its pretty much impossible to split off any section of this article without hurting the main article or the split-off one (in addition that I'm 99% sure someone will knock that for notability). What has completely isolatable separate topics has been summarized to the point of inclusion in this article, so I can't trim more from those sections. (I'll try to address the other points later, but the length is the factor I need comments on). --MASEM (t) 18:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – sorry Masem, but I agree with Nikkimaria. Not at all engaging. The prose requires a great deal more work; it is impenetrable in parts, lacking logical flow and riddled with jargon. This section, taken at random, illustrates the problems throughout the article: "Several early chambers that the player experiences in Portal 2 were created by reusing Portal test chambers and applying decay, collapse, and overgrowth on them. As an initial goal in the sequel, this was done to give players a sense of nostalgia from the first game and a feeling for how much time had passed. It also allowed the team to avoid the use of the less-resolved textures from the first game, replacing them with higher-resolution dirty and worn-out textures that the newer engine could support." What is decay, collapse, and overgrowth? And all this redundancy a sense of nostalgia from the first game and a feeling for how much time had passed. I think the readers will understand nostalgia. And what does this mean higher-resolution dirty and worn-out textures that the newer engine could support? I think these problems have arisen from an attempt to include too much detail. The article needs a radical copy-edit to remove excessive jargon, improve flow and remove redundancy. Graham Colm (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment - Wow, that's a really long article. However, from a quick glance it seems to me that there are a lot of points in this that are over explained and could be written much more concisely. I'm not sure how much such a copyedit would shave off, but it would certainly be a start. I might have a go and cutting back a bit myself if I have a moment. Coolug (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this a little bit more I think you're going to have to be pretty ruthless if you're going to cut this article down, and as someone who hasn't been involved in the article and knows hardly anything about the game anyway, I don't feel particlarly qualified to be the person doing this. But, do you really need to mention all of those reviews? Do we need all that detail on how a band came to contribute a song to the game? Go through the article and ask how important is each part things to the overall strength of the article. Then be bold and just get rid of it, you can always revert changes later. Coolug (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm sure we need the pics of either Merchant or Simmons. They are free, but add zero. Ceoil 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that part of the game's reception was the praise for these voice actors, showing who they are would seem to be appropriate particularly since we have free images of both. --MASEM (t) 19:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because you can, does not mean you should. At least so, the captions are underdeveloped. Fwits worth I'd prefer both images are kept, I really like both these guys. Ceoil 00:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:53, 28 May 2011 [2].

Koninginnedag[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. A hundred and twenty five years ago, some Dutch decided to promote national unity by having a holiday on Princess Wilhelmina's birthday. They could not imagine that their innocent little children's holiday would grow into an excuse for flea markets, heavy drinking, and wearing orange to excess. Not to mention orange beer. Enjoy it. I've been over there six times on Koninginnedag, perhaps I can pay for my enjoyment a bit with what I think would be only our third Netherlands FA after an unbuilt battleship and Anne Frank. Enjoy (hic).Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Formatting on ref 9, 14
  • Be consistent on what is italicized - NYT for example is only sometimes so currently
  • Be consistent in whether you use website name or URLs as publishers for web sources
  • What makes amsterdam.info a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will do these this evening. With respect to amsterdam.info, their about us page seems to indicate that this is a serious endeavour, with a team of local editors supervised from a corporate location elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed those. amsterdam.info is the name of the organization as well as the web address.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Photographs seem valid in their assertions of public domain. The ogv is a bit tricky, but I believe Sound and Vision has managed to at least obtain permission to license Polygoon films that enables "free" use in the US (where copyright of foreign publications in force for 95 years after publication) ,[3][4][5] in a manner similar to Bundesarchiv; so all media is appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can see myself supporting this article, but have a few prose requests, most of which I deal with myself; but a few I can't without stepping on toes. The lead is, to me, unbalanced; the third para picks up a number of points, but they seem disconnected. the holiday was moved to her birthday. In 2009, seven spectators were killed. is known for its nationwide vrijmarkt. At least I'd break the last two into their own para and merge the preceeding with the 2nd para. And there is a lot of repetition in consecutive sentences with 'the holiday', 'celebrations/celebrated' etc (in the first too sections of the article, though the prose pick up after that). I'm leaning towards support, can tweak myself in a few days. One difficult sentence:

Celebrated on 30 April (the 29th if the 30th falls on a Sunday), Koninginnedag is Queen Beatrix's official birthday—she was born on 31 January; 30 April was the birthday of her mother and predecessor, Juliana.
This is a snake and contains both dashed asides and parentheses, in other words hard to parse, though maybe Im just thick. Ceoil 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits and the review. I'll look at it closely when I have more coffee in me. Your request sounds quite reasonable. I'll play with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've taken care of that. Would you like to take another look?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: An interesting and unusual topic of which I was formerly quite in ignorance.

Lead
  • "On her the holiday acquired its present name" - word(s) missing after "her", possibly "accession"?
  • In the last sentence, since you are citing, it would be better to use the source's actual expression - "otherwise straight-laced" - in quotes, rather than your paraphrase.
I'll change it to straight-laced, but I don't think a quote is needed. The citation, of course, is there to justify the adjective, otherwise I know what would happen at FAC. :)
Wilhelmina
  • MOS violation with text squeezed between two images. Wilhelmina's portrait is probably dispensible
  • A comma too many in "Faced with an unpopular monarchy, in the 1880s, the liberals in Dutch government..."
  • You probably can't answer this, but why would a holiday on the last day of the summer vacation be popular with schoolchildren? I'd have thought that "back to school tomorrow" was a bit of a dampener.
That was pointed out by Tim at PR. All I can say is you probably have to be Dutch. I dislike Labor Day to this day.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To ensure that the poor were not excluded, bands played simultaneously at 28 locations across The Hague". How would this help to include the poor?
  • "During the World War II German occupation of the Netherlands" is rather clumsy, and suggests that there might have been other German occupations of the Netherlands. Perhaps "During the German occupation of the Netherlands in World War II..." would be better.
Juliana
  • In the previous section and elsewhere you refer to Koninginnedag celebrations, here it suddenly becomes "Queen's Day". I think there should be consistency in the nomenclature.
  • Re Prince Claus, I don't think we need the prompt "a member of the nation that had occupied the Netherlands in World War II". This was mentioned only a couple of paragraphs ago.
Beatrix
  • The second, very short paragraph, should be merged with the first
  • The third paragraph needs a little introduction, otherwise it reads like random facts. "On occasion the celebrations have been affected or disrupted. In 1988..." etc. I'm sure you can do better, but something along those lines.
Flea market
  • There is an ambiguity here: "without a permit and the payment of value added tax". Without both, or without one and with the other?
  • The precise financial details seem to me to be a bit off-topic.
I'd rather leave them in. ING does this every year and I think it is useful to the reader to know the scale of the thing. It's actually pretty massive. This year, I didn't actually buy anything, but I had an enjoyable time walking around Amsterdam.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Festivities
  • "...and after all-night partying take part in the traditional activities of Koninginnedag itself." Apart from floral tributes, what are these "traditional activities"?
Actually, while there are still floral parades in the Netherlands, they no longer take place on Koninginnedag. I will review the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ther should be a smoother link to the sudden mention of May Day - which is observed as a holiday much more widely than Germany and Belgium. Is it a public holiday in the Netherlands?
I'm going to take it out as too troublesome. It is not a public holiday in the Netherlands.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing too troublesome I think. Brianboulton (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'll work on this this evening. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done, I think, but if I have neither made a change in response to your concerns, or made a comment, please let me know. Thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article is based mainly on news sources, and does not use the books that have been written on the day, such as ISBN 9789025403485, ISBN 9789076591179, and some of these books in the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. (Those are just some examples; I haven't done a thorough search for sources either.) As a consequence, the article omits some important aspects of the celebration, such as the aubade, and drinking oranjebitter. To be sure, these sources are in Dutch, but you can't hope to write an FA about a country's national holiday without using sources in that country's language. Ucucha 10:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, I disagree with you. I don't see all the names of the sources you cite, but they do not appear to be comprehensive, scholarly sources on Koninginnedag, but from what I can see are programmes from the Queen's visit to towns. The aubade is one of the local customs I speak of generally, basically a concert, it is not unique to the Netherlands or Koninginnedag. If you would like me to add more on the local customs, such as the games, like koekhappen that are played, I most certainly can. I was actually persuaded to take that out at the peer review stage. Oranjebitter is beer. The drinking is mentioned, and I can add more on the drinking if you like, there are several quotes like everyone drinks beer because it is cheap (hmmmm) and readily available. I am happy to work with you on this, and if there are scholarly books on Koninginnedag, to see if I can obtain them.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I looked at the two books you specifically cite. The first is clearly a work of fiction, judging from author's article on the Dutch Wikipedia (translation provided. The second is a 31-page brochure which yes, is about Koninginnedag, but it is a 31-page photo brochure. I question the need to obtain it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not checking on those in more detail. Many, but not all, of the books in the KB catalog are programs (and I agree that the programs won't me of much use). ISBN 9028418229, for eample, appears to be a scholarly account of the origin of Koninginnedag. This book has analysis of the meaning of the holiday in the context of the Dutch monarchy. I do think you need more on the festivities—there's more to it than just the vlooienmarkt and Koninginnenach. Things like koekhappen and the aubade (ringsteken is another example) may not be exclusive to Koninginnedag, but they have become associated with it and need to be discussed in a featured article on the holiday.
I don't have much of an interest in working in the article; I only want to prevent an article that doesn't fulfil the FA criteria from becoming an FA. I think you may need to withdraw it from FAC in order to do a more thorough search for sources and work in more material. Ucucha 10:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying, but I am going to await comments from other reviewers before doing so. I have no great problem with doing so but let's see what other people watching the FAC have to say.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me think it over. I agree the Ezinga book has useful information, and even with google translate and a Dutch speaker I have on call to check my translations, it may take a little time for me to work through it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a few specifics:

  • The lead says Koninginnedag is the "official birthday" of Queen Beatrix. The body doesn't say that, and it seems an odd wording to me; sure, we celebrate her birthday on April 30, but that doesn't change the fact that January 31 is her actual birthday.
  • I think (though I haven't found the sources to confirm it) that the vrijmarkt tradition may be younger than the article suggests; the first mentions of the term in connection with Koninginnedag in Google are from the late 1980s, and the 1982 Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal entry for vrijmarkt only mentions a historical meaning as a market with special privileges. The source the article cites for the origin of the vrijmarkt in the 1960s is not of very high quality.

Ucucha 11:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Haven't looked at the article yet (not in a couple of years anyway); Ucucha asked me to look into this. One preliminary remark: Oranjebitter is not beer--it's a liquor. You're possibly thinking of Oranjeboom. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on lead. I'm sorry, but I am not impressed with the lead. The one event of that idiot in his car (sorry, I still get upset over that), while important in its own right, isn't that much a part of Koninginnedag for inclusion in the lead. And the sentence with oranjegekte is grammatically challenged--from 'for the national colour' on the grammar is off. As far as I can see, trimming and reorganizing (history first, meaning etc. second) could lead to two juicy paragraphs. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with this, I found the lead disjointed, but a re-org/trim would sorth it out. Ceoil 15:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was the year I did not go due to other commitments ... anyway, I've asked Sandy to archive this, I agree enough with Ucucha's points to know what is best. I would be grateful if people would leave comments on the article talk page, because I can't open a peer review I think for two weeks. I'm shuffling this to the bottom of my stack (I have about 3 articles more or less ready for FAC) to allow time to find additional references. Sorry about the drinks. As for the car guy, I was actually afraid if I left it out, people would be aggrieved, it seems to be the other way around . . . oh well. I'll look to bring it back this summer some time. I trust Ucucha and Drmies will be willing to check my work before I renom?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [6].

Ramblin' Wreck from Georgia Tech[edit]

Nominator(s): —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC) LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked on this article quite a lot and hopefully with your help I can raise it to an FA, or at least improve it. Went back and fixed the dead links before I nominated it, but other than that this article is a FAC virgin. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wait, you already placed a nomination for James E. Boyd (scientist). You can't have more than one nomination. GamerPro64 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-nomination: I have not made many direct contributions to this article, but through my more direct work on several related articles (specifically Georgia Tech traditions, History of Georgia Tech and Georgia Tech Yellow Jacket Marching Band), I passed along a lot of sources and resources to the Georgia Tech Wikiproject for the improvement of this article and others. I am happy to see the fruits of this and am equally as happy to co-nominate this article, as I feel that it is a complete, well-sourced and well-written article. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - issues with the FAC instructions aside, I don't feel this article yet meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of concerns:

  • Don't use contractions in article text except when quoting
  • I tried to take care of this a little. I have trouble with auditing for overlinking, though.LaMenta3 (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include links in See also that are already linked in article text
  • Vague tag needs to be addressed
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • Use of non-high-quality reliable sources, for example this and this
  • Over-reliance on Georgia Tech-based sources, particularly student publications. I realize given the topic some must be used, but third-party sources are preferred
  • By my count, over a third of the sources are not related to Georgia Tech at all, and that is not counting the two books written about the school cited in the article, which are considered the authoritative references for the history of the school. Additionally, many of the student publications references are supplementary to other third-party sources. LaMenta3 (talk) 23:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contravention of WP:LEAD, the lead contains material that does not appear in the article body.

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • My main concern is a structural one. It feels like half of the article is either lyrics or quotes. This is a huge percentage for a piece of featured work; off the top of my head, I can't think of an FA with a higher percentage of quoted material. Is there any possibility for more non-quoted material? It just feels like there's not enough here for an FA.
  • I'm not opposed to reducing the amount of quoted material, if that helps. Most of it occurs in the "previous versions" section anyway, which is IMO less important than the other sections. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "composed by Charles Ives 1895...". Missing "in"?
  • Blueprint should be italicized as a printed publication. The same goes for Sports Illustrated later.
  • Lead says 'Son of a Gambolier' was what the song was based on, but the body says it was one of two songs that have been credited. The lead shouldn't state as a fact that 'Son' was the composition base; it should say that it is generally considered that, since that's what the body says.
  • Creation at Georgia Tech: In 1908, was the yearbook's name Blueprint or Blue Print? The body and accompanying photo caption differ on this.
  • Rise to fame: After "The group prepared three songs", there's a hyphen that should be a dash of some time (either unspaced em dash or spaced en dash, depending on preference).
  • Typo in "and wouldn not let them sing 'dames.'"
  • In reference 24, the pp. should be p. since it's a single-page reference.
  • Let me repeat a point made above: primary sources composing over half of all sources is a huge percentage for an article at FAC. It makes me uncomfortable seeing all of these university-related sources, and I'm sure that I'm not the only reviewer who feels that way. Any chance for more secondary sources? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:27, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [7].

Kauri gum[edit]

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 16:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it has enough information and meets the criteria. CrowzRSA 16:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Not yet on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk)

  • The first paragraph is: "Kauri gum is a fossilized resin detracted from kauri trees and used for chewing, tattooing, and was often made into jewellery. Kauri forests, which contain Kauri trees, once covered most of the upper the New Zealand North Island. Māori and European settlers caused deforestation, with several areas reverting to sand dunes, scrubs, or swamps. Despite this, the ancient kauri fields continued to provide a source for the gum, as well as the remaining forests."
  • "detracted": It's not listed in the usual dictionaries in this sense.
  • "kauri", "Kauri": consistency
  • "used for chewing, tattooing, and was often made ...": nonparallel
  • "Kauri forests, which contain Kauri trees": redundant
  • "the upper the New Zealand": nope.
  • "with ... reverting": FAC reviewers generally don't like "with" in this sense.
  • "reverting": reverting means returning to a previous state; were they previously sand dunes etc., or were they forest?
  • "Despite this": "this" dangles (see WP:Checklist#dangling).
  • "as well as" also dangles.
  • I see the main contributor to this page has been gone for a couple of years, but see if they're willing to help out on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that you haven't and have made things slightly worse if anything. The opening sentence now says "Kauri gum is a fossilized resin detracted from kauri trees and used for chewing, tattooing, and were often made into jewellery." Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I can't speak to comprehensiveness, but I have some serious concerns about the quality of prose in this article. From the lead alone: first sentence should use "extracted", not "detracted"; "used for chewing, tattooing, and was often made into jewellery" - grammar; "most of the upper the New Zealand North Island" - missing word(s)?; "Despite this, the ancient kauri fields continued to provide a source for the gum, as well as the remaining forests" - sentence is unclear, and "kauri" was previously capitalized; "resin from a kauri trees" - grammar; "eventually fossilising" - you earlier used the US spelling (with a "z"). I haven't checked the rest of the article, but if the lead is representative I would strongly urge you to seek out a good copy-editor. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict: I see Dank has raised most of these points already, so I'm redundant. In any event, I also see some measurements to be converted, further prose problems in the article body, and problems with reference formatting, to the extent that I would suggest you withdraw this nomination to give yourself more time to work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Oppose. This article went through GAN only a couple of weeks ago, where the reviewer commented that "remember that this article isn't complete yet. To become an article of FA-class, this article can greatly benefit from a section about the modern uses of Kauri Gum (Gum collecting perhaps?)", which doesn't seem to have been taken on board. The article just appears to peter out around 1910, with no coverage at all of the modern-day significance (if any) of Kauri Gum. Added to which the prose needs some work. Here are some examples:

  • "There were six major export firms in Auckland who dealt in gum, employing several hundred workers who graded and rescraped the gum for export, packing them in cases made from kauri timber."
  • "Due to the damage caused to the trees by the cutting and otthe practice was banned in state forests in 1905."
  • "In 1898 the "Kauri Gum Industry Act" was passed, which reserved gum-grounds for British subjects, and requiring all other diggers to be licenced."
  • "... a longer spear (up to 8m) was often used, often fitted with a hooked end to scoop out the lumps. Scrub was often cleared first with fire; some got out of control and swamp fires could burn for weeks. Holes were often dug by teams in both hills and swamps ...".

Malleus Fatuorum 16:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [8].

Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death)[edit]

Nominator(s): Red marquis (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... After 9 months of hard work, several peer reviews, a GA certification, some more hard work and peer reviews, I believe this article may be as close as it can get to being FA quality. I spared no quarter in detailing this album. I hope this would be sufficient to pass this time around. Red marquis (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Comments

  • I don't usually do album FACs because I suck at them, but several things jumped out at me in the first paragraph that suggest you may want help from a MOS-savvy copyeditor here. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "industrial rock/metal": it's "industrial metal" in the linked article. See WP:SLASH; generally, avoid slashes unless the sources insist that the phrase is written with the slash.
  • "glam rock-inspired": a judgment call, but I'd recommend "glam-rock-inspired". (And btw, "inspired" is sometimes seen as a waffly word. If something could be described as "glam rock and X", then say that.)
  • "as "a declaration of war."": as "a declaration of war". See WP:LQ. - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Made changes. Please see if they work better. -Red marquis (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that works. Just a suggestion ... I'm saying that if that's what I'm seeing in the first paragraph, then before this is done, it will probably need more copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 13:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while improvements have been made since its first nomination, I still feel this article needs further work before it meets the FA criteria. Here are some examples of specific concerns:

  • WP:MOS edits needed - wikilinking issues, inappropriate bracketing of ellipses, dash/hyphen issues, etc
    • Like what. please elaborate.
  • Citations should be in numerical order, and at least some of them could be bundled
    • I was hoping the bots would take care of this.
  • Some copy-editing is needed for clarity and flow. For example: "Dave Sardy was drafted in to co-produce the album"; "dead celebrities are venerated into saints"; "It explored this theme by taking a critical look into the American public's cultural obsession with firearms, death and fame and its ramifications on the Columbine tragedy.[1] In particular, it focused on what Manson saw as their root causes"; etc
    • I can see how the first one could be confusing but I don't see how the other two are unclear. How could I fix it?
  • The article as a whole seems a bit quote-heavy
  • File:Harris_and_Klebold_Time_Magazine_covers.jpg does not have a FUR for this article; same with File:Sens._Hatch_and_Lieberman_at_the_Senate_Committee_on_Commerce,_Science_and_Transportation_hearing.jpg
    • I've made some changes. Check to see if they are acceptable.
  • Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting.
    • Specify. I've followed all the rules that I know of with regards to this. What did I get wrong?

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on the last issue (refs formats), I've looked at the first column of the refs, and found:

  • A confusing, possibly incomplete date "2000-11" in ref 2
    • It's a monthly magazine. That's pretty much it: November 2000. I was told to pick one date format.
  • Non-italicized "NME" in ref 3
    • Great catch. I missed this one. Fixed.
  • Hyphens rather than dashes in page ranges, refs 29 and 41
    • All fixed.

This was a fairly cursory check and there may be similar issues; I've not looked at the other 2 columns, where similar issues might arise. It's tedious, I know, but every ref needs to be checked out thoroughly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any other issues? -Red marquis (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am suggesting that you check the other two columns with great care, looking for the sorts of things that I found. I'm sorry I don't have time to do this for you. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already took care of the reference issues you pointed out. I have provelt. Made everything a cinch. -Red marquis (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the inappropriate usage of non-free content. I am not opposing on a "technicality" or anything here, this article really is not in line with our guidelines or policy. I have already removed two images which lacked even an attempt at a rationale for this use. The music samples contain useless, copy-pasted rationales without making clear what article they are meant for, File:Marilyn Manson tarot cards.png contains ten separate non-free images (the fact they happen to be in one file is not really relevant...) while File:Marilyn Manson in Bishop regalia.jpg shows a publicity photograph used, apparently, to "illustrate relevant imagery to the album"; neither the photograph nor the imagery are discussed in the section. J Milburn (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now two unwarranted magazine covers have been added to the article after just changing the title of the rationale. The fact this was a cover story is mentioned in passing. That does not mean that we need to see two covers. J Milburn (talk) 00:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are not unwarranted. And they have been there long before I changed the title. You just deleted it. The fact the two appeared on Time twice was a critical component of his counter-criticism. Also, the title of the rationale is negligible. Columbine and its aftermath occurred during the Rock is Dead Tour, he addressed the issue in Holy Wood which means the image could appear in both articles. I have written a better rationale since the revision you're linking to and I have removed the delete tag. -Red marquis (talk) 02:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's further justification: According to Non-free content ~ acceptable use, a copyrighted image can be used if 1.) Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary or 2.) Images that are themselves subject of commentary.
They are. -Red marquis (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To address some more of the concerns you pointed out; 1. Useless music sample rationales? How are they useless or copy pasted? That's all the form asked from me when I uploaded the files. 2. I've moved the bishop regalia picture to the section that discusses it. 3. I've removed the tarot cards. Is there anything else that I need to gut? -Red marquis (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


What the? Why is this being closed already? -Red marquis (talk) 02:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [9].

We R Who We R[edit]

Nominator(s): - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... Ive worked on this article since day one, it just passed its GA nomination and i think it meets/or is close to meeting FA standards. Please leave your comments below and thank you. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My last FA nomination of this article was opposed due to two sources. Before commenting on the article i will explain why they are reliable. WP:SOURCES; "What counts as a reliable source?"

  • About.com; Bill Lamb from About.com is an established author that is a "music journalist specializing in pop music" and contains a substantial background as he has been writing for over ten years. Besides his credentials the website itself is published, supported and funded by one of the most reliable sources out there, The New York Times Company. According to WP:SOURCES this website seems to meet criteria, WP:CONSENSUS among music editors have deemed this as a reliable source, there are hundreds if not 1000's of articles on here (alot of GA's included) that use this as a source.
  • Yahoo.ca, Yahoo blog is written by senior Billboard editor Paul Grein who has direct info from Nielsen. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." which is exactly what this is. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not that its completely necessary if difficult, but would it be possible to add some more information, possibly Kesha's personal thoughts or quotes on the "writing and inspiration" behind the song? I find the section particularly light on information, so I feel it would benefit with more background information. Additionally, the sources need some work. Several are not properly linked or formatted; many are missing publishers or works and other similar issues. Once these are addressed I'll happily go forth to the prose.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Im trying to expand writing but thats extremely difficult to do as there isnt that much info regarding it. But as for the references, please elaborate as i just rechecked them and i can find no issues what so ever that you listed, all contain publisher and work fields (some just publisher as only one is available) and they are all consistent. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand if that kind of information is not available. That is usually the hardest section to expand. As for the sources, I will post you several examples a bit later :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as a general comment, sourcing requirements at FA are higher than in most other areas of the project, requiring high-quality reliable sources (above the minimum standards imposed by WP:SOURCES). Yahoo is not a newspaper and I don't see any evidence that they maintain full editorial oversight of the blogs they host; do you have information to the contrary? Do you have any WP:RSN or WP:FAC discussions supporting this type of use of About.com or a Yahoo blog? Some other concerns:

  • WP:MOS edits needed - WP:HYPHEN, WP:ELLIPSIS, etc
  • Copy-editing needed for clarity and flow - for example, "Upon reading about the surge of gay teen related suicides..."
  • Some excessive quoting - I realize it's difficult to avoid close paraphrasing, but quoting everything isn't the answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again Nikki, those two sources were already discussed in the "Single Ladies" FAC. Please look into it. As for the prose, I don't think its fair to provide one example (it makes sense to me, how would you improve it?) and slap an oppose. Could you give a few examples and suggestions to help him out? Quoting; again, examples? Thanks--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll wait for another experienced FAC reviewer or two to weigh in on sources. As for your other points: I don't know how to improve that sentence, because I'm honestly having trouble deciphering what it means; since you do understand, could you clarify? Some other examples: "It also accomplished top-five positions" - "accomplished" is not the right word, "attained" would be better; "the lyrics were representative of Kesha and her fans stories" - grammar; ""We R Who We R" is a solid kickoff" - colloquial phrasing. For quoting, aside from the multiple MoS issues involved with its use here, one example of overuse is the first paragraph of "Live performances", where the quote is an almost exact repetition of the preceding text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • "In mid 2010, suicide rates amongst gay teenagers experienced a sudden surge. In September 2010, at least six adolescents took their lives due to different contributing factors all related to gay-bullying.[1] After reading about the surge of gay teen related suicides, Kesha was inspired to write "We R Who We R"." There is nothing confusing about this sentence, i think you need to re-read it. "Accomplished" has been changed to "attained" although both are the exact same meaning. "the lyrics were representative" has been reworded. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sure that sounds appropriate. There are several sourcing experts that patrol around the FAC from time to time, lets wait for them. Now as for that sentence "upon reading about the increasing amount of gay teen suicides" I mean this one I don't agree with. The others you mentioned definitely do need work, those I agree with. I appreciate the extra examples, they help the nominator understand the prose issues.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources issues: On the basis of the information provided and previous discussions, I think that the about.com and the Paul Grein sources can be accepted as reliable. I do however have further source-related issues:-

  • Citation 31 supports the statement: "The song has since been certified gold for sales of 10,000 units by the Swedish Recording Industry Association (GLF)". The source consists of an unheaded list of 60 songs of which "We R..." is No. 47. It is not obvious how the list supports the cited statement.
    • References 31, it brings you [10] which lists the song as certified gold, which means according to IFPI 10,000 sales means gold. Should i add an addition reference to show the sales?
      • My problem with the source is that the list seems to have no heading or explanatory material. How does one know that it is a list of songs certified gold? Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sverigetopplistan "is the Swedish national record chart" which is what is used to show Swedish charting for music articles. Hung Medien is also acceptable but that does not show certifications, there is an official PDF from the website BUT We R Who We R has not been added to list as of yet. Thus, the link i have provided it perfectly acceptable as it is the official publisher of the chart. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused by the "Track listing" section. How is the one-item digital download a "track listing"? Some brief explanatory text should precede the details. Also:-
    • Citation 43 goes to a page with a different title from that indicated. Is the url correct?
      • Link went dead, has been removed.
    • Citation 44; The publisher is the German Amazon and the site language is German. These need to be indicated.
      • Done, thank you.
  • Release history section: Why does Germany appear twice in the table? It is not clear that the sparse details in this section represent a release "history"; the information is limited to dates. So far as I can see, the citations 68 to 79 don't actually give this date information.
Two Germany's to indicate two different releases, a Digital release, and a CD release, that is why we have a format field. And refs 68 and 79 both state what is cited. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for weighing in on the above issue and for reviewing the article. I believe all concerns have been addressed. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done another round of copy edits. The User:GregU/dashes.js found no issues with hyphens, and the User:Cameltrader/Advisor found no issues with ellipsis. Hope this helps. --Diannaa (Talk) 04:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, hadn't seen that advisor script before, I'll have to try it out sometime! However, I should point out that it doesn't catch all the potential issues - for example, placing ellipses within parentheses in quotes, which is contraindicated by the MoS. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – no obvious issues and meets all meets all FAC criteria. Wouldn't mind giving it the green light. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 13:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Per Template:Cite_web/doc#Optional_parameters... work: If this item is part of a larger "work", such as a book, periodical or website, write the name of that work. Do not italicize; the software will do so automatically. Italicizing the entry has the opposite effect. Brad (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"publisher: Publisher, if any—for example if the website is hosted by a government service, educational institution, or company. (The publisher is not usually the name of the website, that is usually the work)." Work is different than publisher, under work field only newspapers and online magazines are to be in italics. The work field automatically italicizes everything hence why i have ' '. to remove the italics. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have read through the article in the last few days and am pretty satisfied with the current prose. As for other items on the checklist, I think this article covers them quite fine. Nice work CK ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Can you come up with a better opening song? If I knew nothing about the song and I stumbled across the page, I wouldn't be interested in reading it, despite how important the song was. Even something as minor as "...was a #1 hit" or something would be more fun. Alternatively, it could be merged with the subsequent sentence ("...was the first single from...")
  • "Kesha was inspired to write the song in the wake of news that bullying had led to multiple suicides of gay youth in hopes that it would become a pride anthem." - that sentence is a bit lengthy. Might I suggest restructuring it something like, "In the wake of news that bullying had led to multiple suicides of gay youth, Kesha wrote the song in hopes that it would become a pride anthem." I didn't want to outright make the change, in case you came up with something better, but currently it reads rather wonkily.
  • I notice the second paragraph talks a lot in the present. For example, "has been compared", "has been generally positive" (although "it was criticized" is past tense). Was that a stylistic preference, or has that prose simply not been changed since the song was still current?
  • "...reviewers felt that the song was a strong dance-pop number that combined a good rhythm with an inspiring message filled with genuine humor." - can you do something to that to make it read better? Right now it doesn't feel the prose is as good as it could be.
  • Is there a more recent sales estimate than March 2011?
  • The last lede paragraph feels rather week, prose-wise, seeing as it is entirely in passive voice. Could you try working on that a bit?
  • A lot of the "writing and inspiration" section is filled with quotes. Couldn't you take at least one of those quotes and explain it in prose? It's an encyclopedia, not a repository of quotes ;)
  • Speaking of the writing section, so how exactly did five people write a song as simple as this? I'm not taking a jab at Kesha, just making an observation as a musician, but who did what? Did Kesha just write the lyrics, and the other people provide the music and stuff? Did she pick the key?
  • Can you give a specific example for this phrase - "Vocally, the song follows in the footsteps of Kesha's previous single"? Or am I to assume that the later reference to Tik-Tok addresses this?
  • Did anyone other than Rolling Stone not give it a positive review (and for that matter an actual negative review)? Did any legitimate (classical, trained) musicians comment on the song?
  • In "Chart performance", you might wanna mention when "Love the Way You Lie" was. For all I know, it could've been back in 2000, which would've made this song's feat all the more impressive.
  • "noting that it was going to show a sexier side of herself. She elaborated, "This video is a little bit 'sexy time'." - these two phrases are really redundant given the quote.
  • In "Live performances", I really expected to see a mention of the song being performed in her concerts. I assume, given its popularity, that it would be given prominence in her tours.
  • I'm surprised there is no mention of Raise Your Glass, which has a similar theme of being oneself.

Overall a decent read, but not quite what I expected out of a prospective FA. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [11].

Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)[edit]

Nominator(s): Adabow (talk · contribs), Jivesh • Talk2Me 05:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it documents one of the most culturally significant pop songs of the decade. It has been through 2 PRs and had a run-through by an experienced copy-editor, so I think it makes an interesting read. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose mostly on sourcing at this time. I appreciate the work that's gone into this, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's working. 178.134.118.245 (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • Reference formatting needs to be much more consistent. For example, compare refs 6 and 7, or 9 and 10 - these are from the same source, they should be formatted the same
  • Magazine and newspaper sources without weblinks need page numbers. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I can't speak for the others, but the Yahoo blog and About.com are both accepted by editors all around for music articles. The Yahoo blog is written by senoir Billboard editor Paul Grein, who has direct info from Nielsen. As for About.com, its used throughout all music pages and has been used and accepted for quite some time. As the the few others I can't speak.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • What are the qualifications of the author of the About.com pages? Do you have a WP:RSN or WP:FAC discussion to support the use of these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not, but it is published by The New York Times and is widely used and respected among Wikipedia articles. As I said above, I agree about the others, but these are in fact regarded as reliable. Quoting CK above me:
        • About.com; Bill Lamb from About.com is an established author that is a "music journalist specializing in pop music" and contains a substantial background as he has been writing for over ten years. Besides his credentials the website itself is published, supported and funded by one of the most reliable sources out there, The New York Times Company. According to WP:SOURCES this website seems to meet criteria, WP:CONSENSUS among music editors have deemed this as a reliable source, there are hundreds if not 1000's of articles on here (alot of GA's included) that use this as a source.
        • Yahoo.ca, Yahoo blog is written by senior Billboard editor Paul Grein who has direct info from Nielsen. Please see WP:NEWSBLOG "Several newspapers host columns they call blogs. These are acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." which is exactly what this is.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yahoo is not a newspaper, and I see nothing to indicate that it exercises editorial control over the blogs it hosts; if that is the case, can you point it out? Please also note that FAs have higher requirements for sourcing than most other areas of WP, including GAs - high-quality reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you still dubious about Lamb? Nero has written for the Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe, Pasadena Star-News. Paul Grein's blogs are very reliable, as he sources his data from Nielsen SoundScan. I think people see the word "blog" and think "unreliable!". Many blogs are very unreliable, such as those hosted at blogspot.com and similar sites. However, one must remember that a "blog" is simply a "web log". Top-40.com has been replaced by a press release from the horse's mouth, and I am working on PopEater. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have replaced PopEater. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nikki, I have to disagree with your assessment for Yahoo!. As others said, Paul Grein is an extremely reliable author, writing for Billboard, Rolling Stone etc previously. You are kinda imposing your overall assessment of blogs into this. If so, then I request you please don't. As for Yahoo exxercising control over them, I ca assure you that they do. There have been cases of content being updated and misnomers addressed, which normally doesnot happen if a higher authority doesnot oversee them. I'm dubious about About.com, but I am absolutely sure about Yahoo blog, especially Chart Watch by Paul Grein. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • And just to add, when I worked at Billboard, even senior editors like Monica, Silvio and even Fred sometimes used to ask Paul for his comments before constructng an article. I find him even more reliable, than the whole of Billboard put together. — Legolas (talk2me) 05:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I have found some RSN archives: [12][13][14][15]. Consensus is that About.com is reliable except for extraordinary claims that are unmentioned in other sources. It also depends on the individual writers; Nero and Lamb are expert music journalists. For a music review and Analysis, I believe that it certainly meets WP:RSN. Adabow (talk · contribs) 06:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Agreed to everything above. Nikki, please look into it with a broader mind set.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Those are not the conclusions at RSN, nor have you supplied information about Bill Lamb that would elevate him to the level of high-quality sourcing needed for a featured article. About.com is not typically a reliable source; please explain why Bill Lamb, as a self-published source, is high quality. As far as I can tell from his about.com bio and the info (not) supplied about him, he's an internet hobbyist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                          • I have removed sources written by Lamb. However, I still assert that Nero is reliable because he has written abou R&B in The San Diego Union-Tribune, Los Angeles Daily News, The Boston Globe and Pasadena Star-News. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised, Nikki, apart from page numbers (working on it). Sources have either been discussed or replaced. I can't see any specific mis-italicisations – can you point out the specifics? The link is working for me (and the anon), and author names are now all been formatted last, first. Formats are consistent (problem was in the annoying differences between {{cite web}} and {{cite news}}). Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've got some place names italicized (I think this might be a function of some articles on publications having place names in the title? If so, you can solve this by piping the wikilink), the "Note" should not be italicized, etc. You've also still got quite a few (mostly minor) inconsistencies in referencing format, and in line with Brian's comments below I think this article might need some copy-editing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I think I caught everything this time. I have asked another editor to look up the page number of the Rolling Stone magazine, but every other issue you raised has been dealt with. Thanks for reviewing! Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have read through the article in the last few days and have no problem with the current (or prior to think about it) sources. Am happy to support an article of this caliber. Good job guys! ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am a bit concerned about the quality of the prose. Here are some issues from the early parts of the article:-

  • "The song was named one the best singles of 2008" - word missing?
  • This reads very oddly: "...including celebrities such as US President Barack Obama and pop singers Justin Timberlake and Joe Jonas". Should the President be classed as a "celebrity" alongside a couple of pop singers?
  • "Their wedding, held in April 2008, was initially kept private". I think you mean "secret".
  • "Chosen to be the two lead singles from I Am... Sasha Fierce, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)" and "If I Were a Boy" were released simultaneously to demonstrate the concept of dueling personalities of Knowles, also highlighted on the integral album". This is a rather convoluted sentence. Can you clarify what was "highlighted on the integral album", and how this was done?
  • "Eventually it was released via remixes download and CD single on February 16." It's not clear what this means. Should there be a comma after "remixes"? And "via" would be better written out as "by means of".
  • I haven't read in detail beyond this point, but at a glance the "Composition" section seems mainly to contain critical reception comments.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. The specific examples have been addressed. The remixes were released as a download - I have reworded to stipulate this. I fixed one sentence in the "Composition" section, but otherwise it contains details on the song's content. Adabow (talk · contribs) 23:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [16].

Over There (Fringe)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ruby2010 comment! 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A parallel universe? Doppelgangers? KFC? The Brooklyn Dodgers? What show could possibly possess all four of these odd components? You will just have to read the article to find out more! I am nominating this for featured article status because it painstakingly details the large amount of work (production, reception etc) that went into the highly entertaining (and critically acclaimed) season two finale of the sci-fi series Fringe. The article lays the groundwork for the increased look into the Other Side (read the article to find out precisely what that means), and sets up the plotline for the following season. It has achieved GA status and has recently undergone a peer review and a copy edit; I now feel the article fulfills FA's stringent requirements. Thanks to all for looking it over. Here's hoping we have our first Fringe FA. Ruby2010 comment! 18:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concerns were addressed. Comment—Great series! I've enjoyed watching many of the episodes and I thought the "Over There" finale was excellent. After reading the first part of the article, I have some comments:

  • The text freely mixes in dubbed names for characters in the alternate universe without quite explaining them. For example, at the first mention of "Walternate", the text should clarify that this is a dubbed name for the Walter Bishop in the alternate universe. (I think it was the original Walter Bishop that invented this portmanteau.)
  • I was wary about adding too much prose in the lead, particularly about a character that will be described later in the article. Consequently, to help readers I wikilinked Walternate in the lead. Do you still think I should try to describe the character further? I'm just trying to keep it clutter-free Ruby2010 comment! 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first half of the second paragraph of the lead contains information that isn't covered in the body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the body. In this regard:
  • Some of the Plot section contains information that may be confusing to the uninitiated. I think the section could use a "the story thus far" (prelude) paragraph or two to set the stage for the reader and explain the world-specific terminology. For example: who are "The Observers", what is Massive Dynamic and the Fringe Division, what is meant by "there abilities" ("their abilities")?
  • Concerning some background to help non-viewers, I have debated whether I should add something. It came up in the peer review, and one reviewer thought it wasn't really needed. The brief sentence in the lead you mentioned was meant to provide the needed background to understand the series (hence the citations). I've tried to compare this article to other confusing episode topics, such as Lost (Meet Kevin Johnson, Confirmed Dead etc). Confirmed Dead for instance mentions the Others without explaining who they are (the wikilink provided does that instead). Thoughts? Ruby2010 comment! 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, just about every article I've brought before the FAC has been critiqued for the use of jargon, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language. It's odd that this same criteria doesn't apply to non-technical articles. I suppose you could inform the readers about the Fringe (season 2) article so that they can read about what happened before.
  • Yesterday I added that Massive Dynamic is a "biotechnology corporation" and wikilinked it to help readers. The Observer is wikilinked (and I don't think explaining more would help readers that much - they can always follow the link to discover more). I also wikilinked Fringe Division to help readers. I think that is enough for comprehension. There isn't much in the season 2 article, the wikilinks I added go to the main Fringe series article. Does that work? Thanks for your input, Ruby2010 comment! 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I made a few more minor modifications and I think it works for me now. Thanks.
  • The text mixes unspaced em-dashes and spaced en-dashes. Per the MoS, please be consistent and use one or the other.
  • The following doesn't quite make sense, perhaps because of ambiguity: ...wanted "Over There" to be a "beautiful culmination of everything" whilst traveling to the Other Side.
  • "Torv had to learn blocking and shooting carefully..." This should clarify whether this is camera shooting or weapon shooting.
  • In general, some of the paragraphs seem quite lengthy. This can lead to tedium on the part of the reader, so you may want to consider adding judicious paragraph breaks. Particular examples are the paragraphs that begin: "Pinkner and Wyman brought back the...", "On April 5, 2010, Entertainment Weekly reported...", "A number of popular culture..." and "Like part one the second part premiered..."
  • Fixed (although the "Pinkner and Wyman brought back the..." paragraph can't really be divided very well). Ruby2010 comment! 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder seems fine. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jenks24:

  • In the Part two section, the sentence "Peter tells Walter he'll never understand him but, as Walter traveled into another universe twice to save him–which counts for something, Peter forgives him." needs to have an em dash, not an en dash, between him and which and the MoS is against contractions (see WP:CONTRACTION), so he'll --> he will.
  • In the writing and filming section, three of the five paragraphs start with "Over There". Anyway you could change this up a little?
  • Also in that section, "For the fight scene that followed Torv had to learn blocking and shooting carefully as well as to be mindful of her movements and the camera's location – though she was aided by stunt doubles" should be an em dash, as you've said that's what you're going with
  • Same again for "They wrote the cliffhanger not knowing if the series had been renewed – they would have had to make an "eleventh-hour redraft" had the show been canceled by Fox."
  • In the casting section, "Noble described his doppelgänger — nicknamed "Walternate" by Walter[50] — as "[physically] the same man and the same actor".", em dashes shouldn't be spaced.
  • In the reviews section, I assume "A-" is an A followed by a minus symbol, in which case I guess it should be like this A− which will show as A−.
  • At one point in the article you have called it the LA Times, but at another point called the newspaper the Los Angeles Times. See MOS:CONSISTENCY.
  • See WP:OVERLINK. Sometimes you have two wikilinks to the same article in one section.
  • In the refs section, you have left the majority of newspapers unlinked, but decided to link in refs 94 and 95. Better to be consistent, either link them all, or don't link any.
  • They were unlinked in the recent copy edit. They should all be formatted correctly now (I added links to all of them). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 16:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jenks24 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • No need to include "Canada" for Vancouver Sun references
  • Citations to audio/video sources should have time references
  • Looking at the parameters at Template:Cite video, I'm not sure what you mean by time references. The videos are part of the DVD's special features. Ruby2010 comment! 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'll look up the times when I get a chance (am traveling currently; won't be home til the 23rd). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 22:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first site is from DC Comics, which seems extremely reliable considering the article is on comic books they designed. I removed the Geekosystem refs, but don't really see a problem with Airlock Alpha's reliability. Per RS, "with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users". Airlock Alpha's editorial staff wrote/oversaw the two articles I used from their site. Ruby2010 comment! 19:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: formatting
  • Fox is a publisher, not an author
  • Don't use all-caps, even if the source does
  • Publications should all be italicized
  • All the publications should be italicized? I thought it was just newspaper and magazine sources (and not websites like Digital Spy). Ruby2010 comment! 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not as defined for websites - I've seen either done, so as long as you're consistent I wouldn't worry about it. But is "The Hollywood Reporter", for example, a print source or a website?
  • Your "subscription required" links go to the University of St. Thomas proxy instead of directly to the newspaper's or database's login page
  • I can't find direct links to the Vancouver Sun articles (I've search the Sun's website archives but can't seem to find them). I can always just remove the URLs if you want. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did that you would need to add page numbers - is that possible? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 82: publisher?
  • Ref 101: group listed as author is actually publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now – Read through most of the article and am not that happy with parts of it. Some of the comments below are minor, but there are also several grammar glitches that shouldn't be in an article at this stage. I recommend getting a copy-edit from a steady hand; I have examples of issues below, but one editor can't catch everything (and FAC isn't a great place for that anyway).

  • "FBI agent Olivia Dunham and Walter lead a team of former Cortexiphan test subjects there in order to retrieve him". The "in order" is a little wordiness that can easily be removed, tightening the sentence without changing any meaning.
  • "'Over There' were the longest episodes depicting the parellel universe to date." First, I'm not sure this should be in plural format considering the introduction of the article had singular ("is"). Second, I'm confused by the sentence itself. Were these episodes actually longer than others, or is that just the amount of time in that world? The body implies the latter, but this sentence isn't clear enough to indicate that.
  • "with many in particular praising the second episode's cliffhanger." Not a major point, but I've never been a fan of the "with ... -ing" type of sentence, and many other prose reviewers aren't either. How about "and many in particular praised..."?
  • Part two: "considering him a selfish war profiteer while he was locked away for 17 years and is still broken inside." Feels like something is missing from this sentence; can't figure out whether it's a word or some punctuation, or worse.
  • Writing and filming: "and wanted the end of the season to be a 'beautiful culmination of everything' whilst traveling to the Other Side." Again not a big deal, but "whilst" is just a wordier version of "while", which is really the preferred way to write it for an FA. More concerned with these next several things from the same section.
  • "The result was that DC specially designing ten alternate covers of some of their most iconic editions...". "designing" → "designed"?
  • "'but [Fauxlivia] just wants to win." and also that...". There's a period, but the sentence isn't ended. Not appealing to read through.
  • I added a semicolon; let me know if you think its needs something else Ruby2010 comment! 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it needs an extra quotation mark either before or after the semi-colon, depending on whether the source places punctuation before or after the end of a sentence. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added quotation mark (in source punctuation appeared before the end of quotation). Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 20:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "because the writers had not yet chosen what images they wanted displayed and opting instead to add them later." Should "opting" be "opted"?
  • "in order to allow Peter and Walter return to the prime universe". There's that "in order" again, but a "to" is also missing after the names; alternatively you could say "Peter and Walter's return".
  • Casting: TV Guide should be italicized as a printed publication.
  • Cultural references: Don't see why "Civil" is capitalized in the last sentence of the section's first paragraph.
  • KFC was just linked a couple of sections ago. Another link only adds blue and isn't that useful to the readers. You could say the same for DC Comics. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like to add new wikilinks for certain words in each section, but can see where that might be a bit unnecessary. I removed them. You can view the fixes above here. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 19:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck the oppose since most of the issues were fully addressed; still think the article could stand to be copy-edited, though. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I meant to offer my full support, I would have said so. Basically, what I'm saying is that my specific concerns from reading part of the article have been addressed (hence why I'm not opposing anymore), but I would be more comfortable if more copy-editing was done. I didn't read the Reception section, and there may still be places that can be improved in what I did look at. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies if I seemed pushy (this is my first real FA nom, and I wasn't quite sure how to prompt a support/oppose vote). As I'm sure you read, the article already received a copy edit on May 2. I'm reluctant to ask for another so soon unless others feel it really necessary. Again, thanks for taking the time to look the article over and striking your oppose. Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Having read through the article and FA criteria (this is my first review of an FAC) I am satisfied it meets the criteria. -- Matthew RD 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [17].

The Human Centipede (First Sequence)[edit]

Nominator(s): Coolug (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is GA at present, and after a thorough Peer Review I have been able to make further improvements to the article bringing it to what I feel is featured standard. If there is anything more the article needs doing to it please let me know and I will act to fix it as soon as possible. Thanks! Coolug (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • You're notating publishers as authors sometimes - use a consistent formatting
  • MrDisgusting or Mr Disgusting?
  • What makes this a reliable source? This? This? This? This? This? This?
  • All websites need publishers, foreign-language sources need to be noted as such, reference formatting needs some cleaning up. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Thanks for this source review. I have made sure that publishers are not listed as authors in any of the references. I have sorted out the name of'Mr Disgusting'. I've also removed all of the unreliable sources you have mentioned and either used a more reliable source to prove the statement, or if the statement isn't actually all that important removed it entirely. I've removed the foreign language source and the fact it stated as I don't really think it's that vital for the article to tell us about that the film won some award in Italy once (no offence intended to any editors who are Italian film festival organisers). Finally, I've made sure all of the websites have a publisher.
Regarding the reference formatting, I'm not 100% sure what's wrong with the formatting as it is, if you could give me any further suggestions I'd really appreciate it. Thanks Coolug (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be much more consistent. For example: "Retrieved April 13, 2011." vs "retrieved 2010-07-14", "The Human Centipede (First Sequence) at Rotten Tomatoes" (missing retrieval date altogether), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted these out. Format consistent and Rotten Tomatoes has a date now. Coolug (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "The heavy use of bandages in The Human Centipede allowed the filmmakers to imply a much more graphic and disturbing idea than is actually shown on screen." - source? Also, phrasing could be tighter
  • File:10.1.10HumanCentipedeByLuigiNovi.jpg - "This photo may be used, modified and published for any purpose, only if a easily visible credit to the photographer is placed near the photo in each instance in which it is used". Also, the image contains copyrighted photo art. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Source added to statement. Regarding the picture, I have looked for a suitable image with free use on Flickr, but can't find anything as good as this one. Therefore I've added a credit to the photographer. If this is unsuitable for a FA then I will just remove the picture from the article entirely. As for the copyrighted photo art, I'm of the mind that there is justifiable fair use for this to be in the article. The photo art is in the background and not the focus of the picture, the photo art is of very low quality and in fact the same image is already available on the page in much higher quality as a fair use image of the films cover art. Also, the photo art is in that background precisely as an advertisement for the film, so I doubt the copyright holders would have any realistic grounds to object. However, I'm far from an expert on image use on wikipedia, so I might be wrong here. Any other editors have an opinion on this? Coolug (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the picture is actually quite large, if it were resized in order to keep the resolution low would this help to keep its use fair? Coolug (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coolug, here are my thoughts for now...
  1. Attribution: Normally, picture captions should not contain photographer credits, because the image description page usually provides sufficient attribution to satisfy the terms of the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license (see WP:Captions#Credits). You may consider sending the photographer a message to see if he would consider removing the photo caption requirement in this individual case. Politely explain that we are unable to satisfy the requirement in this case because it does not fit in to the established style guidelines, but that he can keep the filename and description page attributions. Also, by continuing to use his work in a featured article, he will gain a great deal of exposure.
  2. Non-free components: A non-free use rationale is not the way to go here. I think that in this case, we can simply argue that the non-free artwork is a de minimis violation. The fact is that the non-free components are coincidental to the image, and are neither its focus nor its subject... i.e. the posters just "happened to be there" when the image was taken. I have created a derivative of the image, using a tighter crop so that even less non-free material remains. Hopefully, this should fix it. Papa November (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent the user a message asking that they might consider removing this requirement. I agree with regard to the de minimis justification, but have replaced the image with the new cropped one just to make sure. I think therefore that as long as the user allows us to remove his name from the picture this should be fine for the article. Coolug (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright holder has replied to my message and said that it's ok to have the picture on the page without a credit in the caption (here). They only require that they receive a credit on the image description page which the image has got. Therefore I've removed the credit from the article. I presume this now means there are no further issues with using this image on the article. Coolug (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Essentially, the format of this article is bad, it's a lot of short sections that seem to indicate more is to be written under each subheading. It doesn't look at all like a finished product. It needs extensive rewriting, getting rid of two-sentence paragraphs and so forth, to look like one of our featured articles. Shii (tock) 11:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tom Six stated that he wanted the film to be 100% medically accurate[17] and claims to have consulted a Dutch surgeon during the creation and filming process.[9]" etc and little, hidden "A physician and critics have dismissed Tom Six's claim that the film is "100% medically accurate" as "rubbish" and "ludicrous".". It is violating wp:undue Bulwersator (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [18].

Mothers of the Disappeared[edit]

Nominator(s): Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. Today I bring "Mothers of the Disappeared" to you for the second time. It's an article which combines several different subjects (politics, human rights, and music) pretty thoroughly. The last FAC was rather quiet, but source and image concerns were cleared up. Enjoy the article! Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images, as Melicans mentions, were cleared at the last FAC. The only suggestion I would make is to consider adding names to the Reagan Administration caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added their names; thanks for the suggestion! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: I checked these out last time round. Only one other issue: you should be consistent in how you indicate when sources have subscription-only access. See, for example, refs 41 and 45. One way of doing this is using the template, thus: (subscription required). Otherwise, sources all look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I didn't know that template existed. Thanks, I've substituted it in and will be sure to use it in the future! Melicans (talk, contributions) 19:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Didn't get past the euphemism in the lead "had been forcibly disappeared by". Tijfo098 (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please clarify your oppose? Forced disappearance is the article that it links to, and all of the sources use that term. Saying "forcibly disappeared" is not a euphamism; it's the grammatically correct usage of the term. And can you really oppose when you haven't even looked beyond the lead? Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I requested that the user return to clarify the opposition on 10th May on their talk page. Melicans (talk, contributions) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this user didn't actually click the link. I agree with the nominator that the term has a very specific meaning is grammatically correct. Unless Tijfo has valid complaints, I suggest that the delegates ignore this oppose. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the same, but after a month, this FAC must be closed, reluctantly, since it seems no one will review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [19].

Malagasy cuisine[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cuisine of Madagascar represents a unique blend of influences from East Africa, India, East Asia, France and elsewhere, reflecting the island's role as a crossroads of the Indian Ocean. However, the vast diversity of local ecosystems, high rates of plant and animal endemism, and the original settlement of the island by Austronesian seafarers rather than migrants from the African mainland have produced a culinary tradition that is uniquely Malagasy. I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria and its elevation to FA would increase high-quality coverage of African topics on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Should use "pp." and endashes for page ranges
  • All book citations need page numbers
  • There are several cookbooks cited near the end where I did not include page numbers because the "evidence" is contained in the cookbooks in their entirety - how should I proceed? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In certain cases that type of citation is acceptable. However, I'm unsure why you would be citing something like "Several foreign dishes have been widely popularized in Madagascar and are commonly prepared at home and in restaurants" to an entire cookbook. Is there not a secondary source that says this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 9: publisher appears to be mongabay, not wildmadagascar. wildmadagascar.org is the work in this case
  • Reading this page, it appears both sites are owned and operated by the same person. It's unclear to me why the url would read "mongabay" when the site states "wildmadagascar" - would this be a question of both sites being run from the same server? This is a little confusing - if there is a precedent or established policy for determining which site should be cited (the page we see on the screen, or the url above) that you could direct me to for future reference, I would greatly appreciate it. As it stands, I'm hesitating to make the requested change. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In either case, wildmadagascar is the work. The publisher, as listed in the copyright notice at the bottom of the page, is mongabay. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you provide publisher locations for books
  • I have revised the citations so locations are consistently provided. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in which type of citation template you use (citation or the cite family); mixing them causes formatting inconsistencies
  • Done. However, I need to be able to reference chapters in edited books and it appears there is no template for that. The closest I've found is using the cite encyclopedia template. It's not perfect, but I made the switch - what do you think? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Could you not just use citebook for those cases? It includes a parameter for both editor and chapter. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is great - I'm learning quite a lot through this process. Cite Encyclopedia refs have now been changed to Cite Book (with chapters). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for consistency on formatting details, like whether "p." is followed by a space or not, doubled periods, etc
  • Retrieval dates for online copies of print-based sources are not required, but if you're going to include them you must do so for all such sources
  • When using titles for shortened citations, they must be italicized
  • I'm not familiar with what you mean by titles for shortened citations. Could you indicate an example please? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Savoir Cuisiner (2004), p. 7" - "Savoir Cuisiner" is the title (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, Cuisine de Madagascar is the title; Savoir Cuisiner is the name of the cookbook series and the closest to an author we have. I made the requested changes - please let me know if the above clarification necessitates further changes. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 49: why title here instead of author?
  • There is no author name given for this book. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why do you later give the author as Chan Tat Chuen? (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah - my apologies, it was a display problem. I was looking at an earlier version referencing different books in the notes section (same cause for confusion regarding note 63 below). Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting consistency for multi-author works
  • What is INALCO-CFI/OIPP? CABI? Spell out or link (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 63: this book isn't in References
  • I see it displaying on my computer (PC running Firefox). Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You see it in References? Are you sure? I have the same setup, I don't know why it would be different. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 73: what year?
  • I had the year in the citation template coding, but it wasn't displaying for some reason so I added it to the reference manually. I'm not sure if the change I made conforms to Wikipedia formatting for newspaper citations. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 77, 81: References lists only one author for this work - which is correct?
  • A typo was preventing the second author's name from displaying - good catch. Fixed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 86: publisher?
  • It's the personal website of a Malagasy cook. I just added the URL... let me know if this needs to change. Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBN for Boissard? Also, where is Antananarivo?
  • There doesn't appear to be an ISBN for Boissard. I've checked the covers of my own copy of the book and on Google books as well - nothing comes up. Antananarivo is the capital of Madagascar; I have added it to the references to avoid confusion. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check formatting on Kent
  • Could we make the large Cuisine navbox collapsed by default? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how to do this. Could you point me in the right direction? Lemurbaby (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's been fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your detailed review and comments. I have done my best to respond to all your points above and look forward to your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "Lemon and mango sauces (achards) traditionally accompany meals in the northwestern coastal regions of Madagascar." - source? Captions should meet the same standards for prose and verifiability as article text. Also, while I haven't checked the article text in detail at this point, I would suggest it be copy-edited a bit more
  • References were contained in text but I went ahead and added them for relevant images as needed. I will put out a request for a copy editor (something I've never done before - bear with me as I figure this out). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy edit has now been completed by a member of the guild of copy editors. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Madagascar have freedom of panorama?
  • File:Rhum_arrangé_Madagascar.jpg - what is the copyright status of the sculptures visible in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will look into these two copyright questions and experiment with the book chapter formatting tomorrow. Thank you again for your hard work. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Title 3, Article 48 of the Copyright law of Madagascar that I found, it seems Madagascar does have something akin to Freedom of Panorama, without calling it by that name. Here is the translation of the section:
"Notwithstanding Title II, Chapter II concerning inheritance rights, it is allowed, without the author's permission and without paying remuneration, to publicly reproduce, broadcast or televise an image of an architectural work, artwork, photography and applied arts located permanently in a place open to the public except when the original work is the primary subject of the new one, under the condition that the new work be used for non-commercial purposes."
In this case, it seems the photos in this article that include buildings, advertising or the wooden sculptures may be utilized on Wikipedia because they are not the primary focus of the images, are in places accessible to the public, and are being used for non-commercial purposes. Does this interpretation strike you as correct? Lemurbaby (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buildings are fine. Those sculptures, though, are likely not "permanently" displayed there, and so are likely not covered by this rule. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I will crop the image to remove the sculptures and upload it tonight. Lemurbaby (talk) 14:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cropped image has been uploaded to eliminate potential copyright issues. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have responded to all the points raised above and hopefully did not overlook anything. Lemurbaby (talk) 02:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • After checking against the formatting of other FAC reviews, I think this is closer to how it should be. There hasn't been any action on this article for a while from reviewers - does anyone support or oppose it moving forward? Thank you for your feedback. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: I am in the process of reviewing this fine article. Sorry for the delays. So far, I've made it through the lead, and it looks excellent. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I noticed that you referenced the BBC special for the statement: "Early Malagasy communities ate the meat and eggs of Aepyornis maximus, the world's largest bird..." I've watched the series, and I remember Attenborough pointing out that it was very rare to find bones with cut marks, and he comes to the conclusion that they probably weren't hunted. Instead, he supports the idea that the Malagasy stole their eggs, but also mentioned shrinking habitat. I tried searching Google Scholar, and didn't find a good source for this. Most of what I found talked about the timing of the extinction. But given your source, I would suggest changing it to read: "...may have eaten the eggs, and occasionally the meat of..."
  • By the way, I have more pictures from Madagascar if you think you might prefer them. I know one includes pictures of a variety of fish on display in a pirogue. I also have pictures of a rural family cooking... although posing as well. Just email me through Wiki and I'll send you copies. Then you can let me know if you want me to upload them.
  • I keep finding fantastic photos on Flickr too, and there's hardly room for any more images in the article... I'd put a gallery in there, but somebody once gave me feedback that FA-quality articles don't have galleries. Is that true? Lemurbaby (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not... but it also depends on who you talk to and how you set up your gallery. The featured article Ring-tailed lemur had a gallery, which was converted to use {{multiple image}}. The key to using a gallery is to use informative—not decorative—images, but also include informative captions. That brings me to another point... I noticed that in your edits today, you simplified captions on a lot of your images. Many of the captions were not only told what was in the picture, but offered tantalizing facts that drew people in. Now they read, "Koba vendors" or "Zebu herder removing raketa thorns". Was there a reason for this change? Granted, Wikipedia:MOS#Captions doesn't help me out on this one. Maybe it's just a personal preference. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cola and orange soft drinks are popular, as is bonbon anglais, a local sweet lemon soda." – Is it worth mentioning the prevalence of Coca-Cola products (non-diet Coke, Sprite, & Fanta) in Madagascar. The source for the statement mentions it, and I think that the impact of the far-reaching Coke market deserves some sort of mention. Maybe in one sentence mention that some soft drinks are made locally, while others, particularly Coca-Cola products (Coke, Sprite, & Fanta), are imported?
  • I think the Coke products might actually be made locally - I'll try to find out for sure. But I think the way I phrased what I just added works as well. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right... they collect the bottles and send them back, probably for local production. But the key point is that by buying Coca-Cola products, a sizable chunk of the profit goes overseas, whereas buying Bonbon Anglais keeps more money within Madagascar. I'm not trying to soapbox. I just feel its economic impact is noteworthy. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Imports" section is partially redundant. Can the material be worked into other sections instead?
  • I tried playing with it, but it really doesn't work better any other way. Keeping the section intact underscores the way that Madagascar's role as an oceanic hub continues to influence its cuisine today. Most of the dishes listed in the section don't fall under other categories of Malagasy cuisine (i.e. loaka, rice, snack, street food). The redundancy in mentioning sambos and nems again is not such an issue given that the message is different in each instance - the first, identifying these foods as tsakitsaky to be eaten with alcoholic beverages, and the second discussing them as foods imported from elsewhere. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take that back! It does work better to incorporate the material into the historical section. The only food that didn't fit well was the bol renverse so I just took it out. There are plenty more foods that have been introduced (Western grocery stores etc) and it doesn't make sense to list every single one anyway. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And speaking of imports, is there any information about the importing of rice and other food? I know for a fact that they import rice from Pakistan and other locations because they don't produce enough to feed their rapidly growing population, and as fuel prices rise, food prices are rising with it. Granted, this almost makes me wonder if this and other information in the article shouldn't be included in the new (and poorly structured) article, Agriculture of Madagascar. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about rice importing is important and definitely needs to be on Wikipedia. It's also rather complicated and couldn't be entered into in depth here without seeming like a deviation from the main topic. It should probably appear in both Agriculture of Madagascar and Economy of Madagascar since some sources I've seen state Madagascar would have more than enough rice to feed its people if it would stop exporting, but it does so in order to obtain foreign exchange currency for the international market. I'll look into this further. But for this article, perhaps just a half-sentence mentioning that some rice is imported (with a link to the larger discussion elsewhere) would work best. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're probably right. I hope you plan to develop those articles as well. I'm looking forward to reading them if you do. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at your code and references, and I must admit that if I wanted to add new information to the article, I wouldn't know how to add the citation because the styles are mixed. In some cases, books are listed only in the "Notes", while others are listed in "References" and given notes in the "Notes" section. The same goes for journals. Also, you have to manually keep track of what page numbers have been used in your notes so that you know whether or not you need to use a named or unnamed ref tag. Do you want me to help standardize this? We could use list-defined references and {{Sfn}} like I showed you on some of your other GAs. If you want me to do this, just let me know whether you want me to put only books in the "References" section or both books and journal articles. Personally, I do both, and then reserve the "Notes" section for the web/news references and Sfn notes. Either way, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The system I followed was to put all works cited multiple times (i.e. different page numbers) under "References" with the individual citations under "Notes". Any work only cited once for a limited range of page numbers was also listed under "Notes." How is it supposed to be done - are there any standards written anywhere on this in WP? I'm not quite comfortable with list defined references yet, and if I can't edit my own article for fear of screwing up the coding that gets pretty limiting. Let's leave it as is for now... if I ever master LDR I will come back and change it myself. :) Lemurbaby (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I understand, and you're perfectly fine. There is no standard, in terms of coding style, and in fact, you don't even have to use the cite templates if you want to type them up yourself. It was just an offer, so don't worry about it. Your articles keep getting better and better, and I'm very glad to see you put such hard work into the other Malagasy articles. Btw... I did have a question for you up where we were talking about images. However, it's nothing to hold up my support, so I've given this article my thumbs-up. Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 20:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, great article! It has definitely improved since it's last FAC run. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • "The presence of these foods at the turn of the 19th century suggests that they may have emerged during this period or even earlier." A logical conclusion, but do you have a cite?
  • "Smoked and dried seafood and meats, fruits, dried maize and cassava, salt and other products were exchanged between regions at designated marketplaces." I had to read this several times to understand what you meant. Could this be simplified/clarified (the list runs on a bit).
  • What do you mean by "the imperial era"? Is this the rule by the Merina monarchs or by the French colonialists?

I've so far reviewed until the bottom of 1800–1896, and made a few minor changes, which you should review (feel free to ask me about any individual changes). I should be able to return and finish within the next few days. Apterygial talk 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:26, 27 May 2011 [20].

Federation of Stoke-on-Trent[edit]

Nominator(s): NtheP (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It has paased a GA review and has been peer reviewed and copyedited. I beleive that political historys like this subject are an under represented topic area on Wikipedia and this is my first attempt to redress this imbalance. NtheP (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • That map is quite hard to decipher even at full scale, never mind in the reduced size. Is there any way to make it clearer, bigger, or to highlight the relevant towns?
  • "county plan" or "County plan"? "federation" or "Federation"? Be consistent between captions and article text

Images licensing appears unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed the capitalisation. Regarding the map is this any better? NtheP (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although it seems to disprove the "roughly in a north-south line" caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped. Amended to "roughly in a north west to south east line" NtheP (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

  • "Explanatory notes" are part of the text, and should not consist of uncited material
  • Short citations should be given by author or editor, not by the work's title (e.g. refs 1 to 7)
  • Links to parliamentary debates in Lords and Commons were not working when I checked
  • Newspaper references (18, 20, 21, 22 etc ) should give titles and page numbers
  • Ref 65 is incompletely formatted.

Otherwise refs and sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 20:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After a second trip to the museum to look at the newspapers I think these are all addressed. I thought modern sub-editors were bad but some of these headlines are less than snappy! Hansard Millbank is down for me too, I keep getting 503 reported. NtheP (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hansard Millbank back on-line. NtheP (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'm starting through the article now, I'll give you my thoughts as I stumble across them. I don't think the name of the article is right, because most readers, and especially those who only see the page title, will assume there's something called a "Federation of Stoke-on-Trent", when you're actually talking about the history of the creation of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent (and that's too many words, so that wouldn't work as a title either). Since you lowercased it, I'm assuming there's insufficient support for the title as a proper noun; you're saying that there's support for the word "federation" to describe this process. If so, IMO it doesn't matter whether most sources use "federation" for this formation process or not, if the readers don't understand the title by itself; it's not like you can add a footnote to the title and clear it up. Creation of Stoke-on-Trent or Federation of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent might work; in the latter case, the lowercasing would clue in the reader that you're talking about a process rather than a thing. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Federation of the county borough of Stoke-on-Trent works for me. As to whether its Federation or federation is an interesting one. If we put the unwritten The in front of the title as it's a singular event then proper noun and capitalisation is justified and certainly Bennett always capitalises it in The Old Wives Tale as do some of the newspaper headlines. Then again federation unqualied by of S-o-T is a common noun. Jenkins which is the primary reference to this process uses federation as does the original proposal in 1902. So its six of one and half a dozen of the other - as long as there is consistency in the article does it matter? As a side issue although the term federation was used throughout the proceedings and locally, in Stoke, is referred to as Federation, technically it wasn't a Federation but an amalgamation, but to call this article Amalgamation of the county borough of Stoke on Trent would fly against WP:COMMONNAME.
  • "The federation of Stoke-on-Trent refers to the events leading to ...": Since it's a descriptive title per WP:LEAD, the first bit shouldn't be bolded ... and LEAD says that the title "doesn't have to appear verbatim"; practice has generally been not to make it verbatim. If you're willing to change the title, let's massage the first sentence after that. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • More than happy to revisit, no thoughts at the moment at what might be an improvement.
  • "Issues again arose over the financial settlement and discussions continued during the progress of the Federation Bill through Parliament.": "Issues arose" is a warning sign of imprecise language. Probably either more or less information would be better.
    • "Issues arose..." replace with "Again there was disagreement" ?
  • "Passed as law in December 1908, the act came into force on 31 March 1910.": "as law" might be redundant.
    • Agreed
  • "The idea of federation was never universally popular; disagreements between boroughs and heated debate in the town halls were common throughout the period.": Which period? Also, when you can't work a one-sentence paragraph into any other paragraph, it's sometimes better to drop it. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you're right, I've spent a lot of time wondering how to expand this sentence into a paragraph and on reflection your line is the better one.
  • I'll stop at the end of the lead section. Hope that was helpful. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very helpful, thanks. Would welcome further discussion based on some of the above e.g. reworking the first sentence. NtheP (talk) 18:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm vaguely comfortable with BritEng, but not with copyediting articles that are about 20th century British government; it's just a matter of time before I demonstrate that there are things I don't know that every 5-year-old Brit knows. Hopefully someone else will jump in. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. How about turning the first sentence round to read "In 1910 the six Potteries towns of Burslem, Tunstall, Stoke-upon-Trent, Hanley, Fenton and Longton were amalgamated into the single county borough of Stoke-on-Trent, the events leading to this amalgamation are known as the federation of Stoke-on-Trent."? NtheP (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit. I can't believe this article has been at FAC for an entire month with only three reviews. Here are some comments on the article's prose:

    • Cryptic, thanks for the comments
  • "refers to the events leading to the 1910 amalgamation of the six Potteries towns" What is a Potteries town?
    • they're what the rest of the sentence described - a group of towns amalgamated into one larger town. The Potteries is a nickname for an area of England. I didn't link to The Potteries as this is a redirect to Stoke-on-Trent which is itself linked later in the sentence.
      • I think in this case it makes sense to link to the redirect, as it's possible that someone may write an article about the subject. Even if that doesn't happen, such a link is helpful in that it clarifies that "Potteries" is an area rather than an industry. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • linked
  • "this was the first union of its type and the only such event to take place until the latter part of the twentieth century." An exact date or even a decade would be more helpful than "the latter part of the twentieth century."
    • Decade inserted.
  • "the proposal was revised to one of uniting the six towns into one county borough." I like the following wording better: "the proposal was revised to suggest uniting the six towns into one county borough instead."
    • Aren't "proposal" and "suggest" a tautology?
      • I believe you're confusing the concepts of synonymy and tautology, but even so, I don't see why the use of synonyms is a bad thing here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not totally convinced but it's a minor point.
  • "the Hanley Market Act (53 Geo. 3 c.cxv)" Eh? I don't know what this notation means. At first glance, I thought a narcoleptic editor had just bashed their head against the keyboard and, upon waking, clicked "Save" without checking their work.
    • UK reference to the Act of Parliament. Same as, for example, National Security Act of 1947 (Pub. L. No. 235, 80 Cong., 61 Stat. 496, 50 U.S.C. ch.15) is the citation in the US. I suppose the first example of this referencing could be linked to Acts of Parliament in the United Kingdom#Historical records?
  • "when a meeting in Hanley mooted" What does "mooted" mean?
  • "Apart from the establishment of the boards of commissioners in Hanley and Burslem, nothing further happened until the 1830s" Well now, I'm sure plenty of things happened in that time—just nothing that was relevant to the subject at hand.
    • Isn't is implicit that it's talking about the subject at hand? If you think it need to be more explicit then Ok but personally I think that is overkill.
      • How about replacing "nothing further happened" with "no further changes occurred"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed
  • There is a section titled County plan of 1888, which has a hatnote linking to Local Government Act 1888, and which mentions the Local Government Bill. Are these all names for the same thing, or are they different things?
    • The County Plan was the name given to a proposal to unite the six towns, that proposal was put forward to the UK Parliament as part of the Local Government Bill. When the bill was passed as a law it was called the Local Government Act 1888. The same nomenclature of bill -> Act is the same in the US, I believe.
  • "to set a higher general rate to be paid by the ratepayers of that town." Is "rate" the same thing as "tax" in this context?
    • Rates are a specific form of taxation based on property value. The term is linked in the lead section.
  • "Burslem council then withdraw from the scheme to be followed shortly afterwards by Stoke." I assume "withdraw" is supposed to be "withdrew"...?
    • yes, thanks.
  • "Faced by such strength of feeling," Um. What? I read this several times, always hoping that the words would magically transform into other words that didn't sound so bizarre. Sadly, the transformation never happened, and I grew very sad. What on Earth does this mean?
    • I'm not sure what there is to understand, "strength of feeling" isn't a uncommon English phrase. How would you describe deciding on a course of action when you are being opposed by a group with strongly held opposing opinions?
      • "Faced with such strong opposition" would be my first choice. In my 21 years of life as a native American English speaker, I have never heard the phrase "strength of feeling" used. I suspect that either I am a rock-dwelling nematode or the phrase is chiefly British.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

        • It's probably a British thing. "faced by strong opposition" I can go with. NtheP (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article ends with a series of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Can these be merged?
    • To some extent merged.
  • As a whole, the article seems to be entirely dedicated to describing the events that led up to the federation. Surely if this were an event of any consequence whatsoever, there would be some material written about it after the fact, yes? Somewhere there must exist some historical discussion of the positive or negative outcomes of the merger.
    • Interesting question but I'm not sure of it's relevance. That federation took place is historical fact as is the fact it was the first occurrance of its type. Whether it was a good idea or not isn't related to the event itself. By comparison there are a number of articles on Wikipedia about the history and government of New York City, none of them discuss whether consolidation in 1898 was a good thing or not, just that it happened and what has happened in NYC since. Perhaps there is room for expansion in Stoke-on-Trent#History or a new article on the History of Stoke-on-Trent since 1910 but I don't think this article is the place for it. NtheP (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This particular subject is just about as far away from the continent of things that I find interesting as is possible without venturing closer again. But, if you find these comments helpful, I may finish reviewing the article in a day or two. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interest, I'd welcome more comments especially it's it's being viewed by someone with a vastly different perspective than mine. I do my best to write from a global aspect but inevitably being British is going to creep through. NtheP (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 25 May 2011 [21].

Glass Joe[edit]

Nominator(s): New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it fulfills all of the notability criteria, and has gone through copyedits from two experienced users so far. New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 23:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - not to be discouraging, but I don't feel this article yet meets the FA criteria (which are distinct from the notability criteria). Here are some examples of concerns:

  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This?
  • You need to include author and page number(s) for book refs, and page number(s) for magazine refs with no web link
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher location or not
  • File:Glass_Joe2.png needs copyright info and evidence thereof
  • WP:MOS edits needed, in particular with wikilinking
  • The article's prose needs editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some examples: "GamesRadar's Mikel Reparaz including him in his list"; "Chris Scullion wrote that while Glass Joe could not normally "fight sleep", they were unable to beat him at first in Title Defense mode, which got rid of any worries they had about how Next Level Games handled the series"; "shooting croissants from himself when he is knocked out"
  • The article's organization needs to be tweaked: there is some overlap between sections, and "Difficulty" doesn't seem to fit as a subsection of "Cultural impact". You might consider adding a section about Critical reception. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean overlap? As for the Critical reception section, I think that because all reception, except for the Cultural impact reception, corresponds to his stereotypes and difficulty, it might be best to not have it. I could only do a Critical reception section if it housed the Racial stereotypes and Difficulty sections. What do you think? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 03:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In all honesty, it's not that remarkable of an article. Then again, it is a pretty bland subject to begin with. Only the "Concept and Creation" and "Appearances" sections are somewhat informative. The other sections are just namedroppings of various video game "experts" giving their supposedly qualified opinions, which I guess is a necessary evil if you want a pop-culture-related article to reach "Good" status. I'm surprised there's no mention of Glass Joe's 1 Win/99 Loses record and the only section that describes Joe as an obstacle in the game is the "Difficulty" section. Jonny2x4 (talk) 06:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is some other stuff that could be mentioned, such as the fact that he can be knocked out with the right timing in one punch, his merchandise, or his brief appearance in the Captain N cartoon. However, aside from the KO mention (which would, of course, be mentioned only if it's discussed in a non-guiding way by reliable sources), I'm a bit light on sources for that information. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to add more detail from the sources used in the article (such as more detailed demonstrations of his stereotypes). Does this look better at all? Also, while a bit rough, I'll make sure to cleanup whatever gets added. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 07:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really think this sort of information should be added- the fact he can be knocked out in a single punch is relevant to the gameplay section, while an appearance on a cartoon/appearance in merchandise would add to the appearances section. Are there literally no sources? J Milburn (talk) 08:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – The amount of issues below is a lot more than I'd expect to see in an article of this size. Some of them will be easy to fix, but the last, and most important, one will take some effort.

  • Well, I gotta say, I'd much rather have it fail for low quality than fail because no one cared to review it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and made his first console for the Nintendo Entertainment System...". First console what? This concerns me because I'd think the second sentence of a lead would be spotless.
  • Concept and creation: "He design is notably skinnier than the player-character Little Mac's." "He" → "His".
  • "most of Glass Joe's dialogue consits of him counting to ten in French." "consits"? Try "consists".
  • "He holds a record of one win to 99 losses." This may be the sports fan in me, but I think "to" should be replaced by "and". "one win and 99 losses" sounds a little more proper.
  • Cultural impact: The comma after "and the players on the North Penn football team" should be a period instead.
  • Difficulty: "and wrote that it was more memorable than the in-game fight with real life boxer Mike Tyson." I feel that it should be clarified that this was in the Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! version of the game only. If I recall, he wasn't in the later NES Punch-Out!! due to licensing issues.
  • Pretty sure that GameFAQs (refs 2 and 3) isn't considered a reliable source because it accepts user submissions. Another source for the development information would be preferable.
    • GameFAQs is considered situational here, as release dates have to be verified and approved by its staff, though I imagine sometimes they may make mistakes. If I can find anything else I can use instead, I'll replace it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 needs a date of access.
  • Publisher in ref 33 (Boys' Life) should be italicized, as it's a printed publication.
  • Does the book in ref 35 have an ISBN number? If so, Google Books will have it in the site's profile on the book, and it would be a welcome inclusion here.
  • Enough of the pedantic stuff from me for once. Time for a serious general comment. The impression I'm getting from the other reviewers is that they think there just isn't much here in terms of content. To a certain extent, I agree with them. One of them touched on, but didn't elaborate, on what I believe is the main issue: the amount of quotations. Most pop culture articles have a liberal amount of quotes, and I have no issue with that. However, I do take issue when seemingly half of an article consists of quotes. Writing that isn't just reviewer opinion is lacking. I feel that more paraphrasing would help in this aspect. In Critical reception, barely a sentence goes by without a quote of some sort. This leaves two distinct impressions: that there's not much to say about the subject and that the quotes are serving as padding to make the article long enough to be viable at FAC. Just paraphrasing some of these quotes would go a long way toward making the content seem more substantial. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this is definitely helpful. I've never been the greatest paraphraser (always worried that I'm being too close). While the article may have been too soon for FAC, it definitely helped me more than the Peer review I started for it. I'll just have to learn how to paraphrase better, and hopefully that will significantly improve the article. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 18:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Did some minor copyediting. I have to agree with Giants2008's last point. There are far too many quotes.陣内Jinnai 17:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 01:25, 22 May 2011 [22].

Born This Way (Glee)[edit]

Nominator(s): DAP388 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the criteria for FA status. It is a well-written and comprehensive article, and it took a lot of work to make it look like the way it does presently. Hopefully if it is not quite at FA level, then I can be able to fix the errors. - DAP388 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning oppose: No one would love to see a Glee-FA more than me, but this isn't ready just yet. The article received a extremely cursory GA review, and an active PR is apparently waiting for comment. If anything, the article needs a copy-edit or two from someone unfamiliar with the subject matter. I see typos ("signficantly" in the lead, "counsellor", "transfering", "acknolwedges"... etc.) throughout, WP:DASH issues here and there, and slight inconsistencies in the sources (why are sites like Twitter italicized?). The prose is also clumsy and redundant in places. One example straight from the lead: "This episode.... This episode...". Perhaps consider withdrawing the FAC for now to finish the PR and solicit an expert copy-editor? María (habla conmigo) 16:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I think that could be in order. Haha forgive me, I'm a bit impatient since I've did the peer review about 2 weeks ago, and it's been archived. I think I can wait. How far is it from meeting the FA criteria? DAP388 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I haven't read the article in full (merely skimmed), but the quality of the writing is a big deal around these parts. :) I'd say, get a couple reviews and copy-edits (again, from unfamiliar eyes would help), then you'll be on better footing for FAC. You can submit the article at WP:GOCE for the c-e if you'd like, and/or ask editors with FA-experience to look over it. The prose and little niggling MOS issues was what jumped out at me, so that's all I'm commenting on at the moment. If you'd like to withdraw, just make a note on this page and someone would take care of it. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close/Oppose - I understand you're impatient, but there's an open PR (it's not currently archived, although it looks like it was at one point?), so this can't yet be at FAC. Even if you were to archive the PR right now, I would still suggest you not nominate this yet, as per Maria the prose is problematic, and on a quick glance I also see WP:MOS issues and some inconsistencies in reference format (I didn't check the reliability of the references, just looking quickly). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can agree with you guys that it doesn't meet the criteria just yet. You can close the discussion. DAP388 (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, doing that. Make sure you don't remove the template from the talk page - the bot'll do that for you when it goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:19, 16 May 2011 [23].

Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An exciting story from Hoosier History! This fairly short article is about a strike and subsequent riot that struck Indianapolis in 1913 - it was the greatest breakdown in public order ever seen by the city. Sources on the topic are few, but from the ones available, I've been able to piece together this article which documents a very pivotal moment in the improvement of labor condition in the state of Indiana. I look forward to your reviews, and will work to quickly resolve any issues that may arise. Thanks! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on sourcing, comprehensiveness—In references: Publisher locations for all or none (for consistency). This is an underreported industrial incident. Thought of writing it up for a journal as a research note? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added the location to all sources. I hadn't thought of writing it for a journal, but I suppose I could. I spent about two weeks digging up sources on it, and there are not a whole lot. The next step would probably be to go through newspaper archives. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you did the lit review for academic significance, the newspapers, local and federal union journals it'd be article worthy. The greater academic relevance is obviously the police strike and the success of mass urban union related revolt in forcing political change in the US. Certainly reads better in achieving that success than the many famous IWW losses in the period. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:
    • Crowds of striking workers are repeatedly refered to as mobs. I think using the word "crowd" would be more neutral.
    • It seems to me that the descriptions of violence or threats of violence by workers are both more frequent and generally more detailed than descriptions of violence by police or strikebreakers. Considering that twice as many workers died than strikebreakers or police officers, that doesn't seem right.
  • Other than that, I really enjoyed reading the article. Thanks.--Carabinieri (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced all but one of those instances of "mob" with "rioters". I was using the term to distinguish between the passive and violent phases of the strike. The reason that there is more note of the rioters violence is because they committed more, and as far the details of the different sides violent actions, I only found one source that gave good descriptions of what the police and strikebreakers were up to in that regard, so there is limited info to draw on. Most the source just say "they battled" "they fled" etc, it doesn't say "the police with in and bashed their heads with clubs", although that is most likely what happened. Thanks for the comments! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

    • Image problem - I'm opposing because of the infobox image; the image's source says the name of the company/building is Union Traction which is different than your article, and Shorpy.com isn't a credible source, and they seem to be selling that photo so I have no idea what is correct or if the image is in copyright. I think you need to find the actual image, or pick a different image for the infobox which is credible.
      • I've swapped it for another image. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • [this] would be a better picture (the IHS has a bunch more).
        • All the IHC images I could find are copyrighted by the IHC, they can't really be used unless we can find they were published before 1923. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no links/redlinks for the name of the railway; Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company doesn't exist and its not in the defunct section of List of Indiana railroads. Are you sure that's the right name?
      • The traction company was not a railroad, it was a streetcar system. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm pretty sure the right name is Union Traction Company of Indiana. Not a good sign for 1c.
        • No, it is definitely the correct name as stated in all the sources. The Union Traction Company of Indiana was based in Anderson, Indiana in 1913, not Indianapolis, and was a competitor to the Indianapolis company. Do you have a source to show the name of the company was something else at the time of the strike? —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The shutdown also stopped most of Indiana's inter-city light rail transportation... - Don't you mean Indiana's interurban railways...; light rail is a modern name for these types of railways. Kirk (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Light rail and interurban are interchangeable in that sense, they are the same thing-short gauge rail lines intended for passenger transportation and small cars. These are not railroads with trains, they are streetcars. They are single cars traveling down a track using electric for propulsion. Indiana had an extensive system of these type cars in from 1890-1940. Most went bankrupt and sold their property to railroads in the 1960s who converted the tracks to large gauge and now use the lines for freight. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The external link is for a blog with no sources...Kirk (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is a blog, but I found the information to be interesting. The author is a railroad historian, so it is at least partially reverent. I will remove it though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Found quite a few grammar glitches and style points, which are detailed below. I wasn't expecting this many issues in a moderate-sized article, but the good news is that they should be simple to fix.

  • Why is State capitalized in "transportation hub of the U.S. State of Indiana."?
    • "State" is part of the proper noun in that context? State of Indiana, not "state of Indiana". —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "shutdown" supposed to be two words? (in "The strike effectively shutdown mass transit in the city...")
  • Background: "Beginning with the rapid industrial growth that began in Indiana during the gas boom of the late 19th-Century". Don't think "Century" needs capitalization, either. This over-capitalization of words that don't require it is something to check for in the rest of the article.
  • Something appears missing from "and he and group of men traveled to Indianapolis." Should likely be "a group of men", or similar.
  • "The workers' committee submitted a list of grievances to the company and Stewart to begin negotiations." Is a word missing before Stewart's name or am I reading this the wrong way?
    • No, I have reworded though to be more clear. "To begin negotiations, the workers' committee submitted a list of grievances to the company and Stewart." —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "the" from "was sent to the Robert L. Todd"?
  • From a photo caption: "the of hub the state and city's electric light rail system". Switch needed for "of" and "hub".
  • November 2: Would be useful to add "to" in "A riot began as the strikebreakers attempted restore transit service."
  • November 5: Indiana National Guard doesn't need two links here. Also, there are links for Indiana Statehouse here and in the next section; the latter one could stand to be dropped.
  • Aftermath: "and on November 12 finished work on a binding agreement whereby all employees agreed continue work and maintain all their former seniority". Seems like it's missing "to" before "continue work".
  • "were acts the banned the sale of narcotic drugs for the first time". First "the" → "that"?
  • Missing "of" in "on most the grievances."
  • Publisher of reference 10 (New York Times) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is an interesting article which I think has been brought to FAC prematurely. The very recent GA review made no comments on the article's content, and did not provide any basis for a critical assessment of whether the article meets the FA criteria. In my view a lot more work is necessary before those criteria can be met. There are a few issues relating to images, but my chief concern is prose.

  • Images
    • The present infobox picture lacks confirmation of publication prior to 1923. Its copyright status cannot be determined from the information provided. Copyright on the suggested alternative image is claimed by the Indiana Historical Association. Your safest course would be to promote File:Indianapolis Traction and Terminal Company's Terminal Complex.jpg to your infobox image, because a pre-1923 publication date has been established here.
      • As you are the second to mention this, I will just remove it. I know it has to be pre-1923 because the building was demolished in 1919 and replaced though. I like it because the quality is much better than anything else I can find. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re File:Crowd swarms streetcar in 1913 Indianapolis Streetcar Stirke.jpg, what is the date of the Electric Railway Journal from which the picture is taken?
  • First sentence:
    • What is the source for describing the police's inaction as a "mutiny"? Was it thus described at the time? If so, that source should be cited.
      • The Encyclopedia of Indianapolis calls it that, and that source is given later in the article when talking about it. I also found a book, which I didn't use because it was redundant, on the Indianapolis Police Department, which also calls it a mutiny. I could include that too. It was the refusal to obey orders that was a mutiny. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 02:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is the reason for bolding "Indianapolis Police Mutiny" and "1913 Indianapolis Riots", bearing in mind the title of he article?
      • Those are two titles that redirect to this article, and they are both separate encyclopedia entries in the Encyclopedia of Indianapolis. Since the three events are so intertwined, it seemed most logical to me to put them all in one article here. However, they appear to be equally valid title for the event. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is tautologous to say that The Indianapolis Streetcar Strike of 1913 [and subsequent events] "began as a workers strike..."
    • The opening sentence is too long and convoluted, and really needs recasting as two statements.
  • Second sentence:
    • Having included the subsequent events in the first sentence, the second sentence should not start "The subsequent series of events..."
    • The description of these events as "the greatest breakdown in public order ever seen in Indianapolis" is based on an individual's statement, and should not be presented here as an established fact.
      • It is true though, there has been no other riot or disaster in the city's history. I am well versed in the history of the region, there is nothing comparable. I've tweaked it a bit though. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other lead prose issues
    • "Shut down" as a verb requires two words
    • "Ralston addressed the crowd to promise concessions if the workers would return to work" → "Ralston addressed the crowd, promising concessions...." etc
      • I get such back and forth on things like this. One reviewer will say not to "ing" other will say to do so. Tony's copy edit rules says to avoid "ing" before a noun. Did the concessions make promises?
    • The term "impassioned" is non-neutral unless part of a quote. And, I think, "ending" rather than "breaking" the strike; breaking a strike is a violent process.

With this number of issues arising in the lead, the likelihood is that prose problems will persist throughout the article. I have doubts as to whether all the problems can be resolved within the timeframe of this FAC, but you never know. By all means ping me when you think that all the issues have been addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to address each of your specific comments. Thanks for the review! I do agree, I hate rubber stamp GAs when a set of critical eyes would have went a long way to improving an article. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 01:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:12, 16 May 2011 [24].

Noemvriana[edit]

Nominator(s): A.Cython (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it highlights how a series of events (diplomatic, personal, army movements etc) at a little corner of Europe during the Great War (WWI) significantly altered the balance and led the Allies to victory. That little corner was Greece, which had a fragile balance of power between pro-Allies anti-royalist liberals and the pro-German king. The article seeks illuminate how the two sides struggled for power and their actions almost led to a civil war. Throughout the events the Great powers were constantly involved.

Note: Not sure if it is appropriate to mention here but the French version translated by this article has now a FA status. A.Cython (talk) 04:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for now Not ready, obvious problems with refs, so I haven't wasted time on the text yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed
  • web refs need a publisher
  • All references now have a publisher
  • for books give publisher location for all or none.
  • All references now have a location
  • publisher for Abbott and Paxton refs are incorrect, should be the books' publishers
  • Fixed
  • link for Paxton is a spam link going to a page with no content
  • Fixed
  • Seligman lacks a publisher
  • Fixed

Oppose - I appreciate the work that's been done on this article, but I don't feel it yet meets the FA criteria. Here are somespecific issues:

  • I will try to reduce it. I think most of it is located at the intro...
  • Copy-editing needed for grammar, clarity and flow. For example, "Historian George Leon, agrees with the Venizelos' criticism"
  • The specific point you raised is fixed. I will go through the article and improve it as much as I can.
  • Foreign-language sources should be noted as such
  • Fixed.
  • I broadly agree with the sourcing issues raised above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, agreed with the above. The article has some charm; I'd like to see what we can do with it over at the Military History A-class review. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not a native speaker and this is the first time I attempt to improve an article to FA status. Any criticism is welcomed.A.Cython (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 04:30, 12 May 2011 [25].

Saw (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): GroundZ3R0 002 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked on this article for a summer consecutively before and after release. It has a large volume of information and has completely covered the source topic. It is well-sourced, well written, and should be a definitive example for video game articles on Wikipedia. GroundZ3R0 002 03:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Units

  • It says "Ghz". That should be 'GHz'
  • It says "Saw (video game) at the Saw wikia". I see an unusually long space before 'at'. Is there something wrong with the format?

Lightmouse (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I appreciate the work you've done on this article, but I feel it needs further improving before it can qualify for FA status. 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • The article is in need of some copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. Some specific examples: you use release/released 6 times in the first paragraph alone; "she follows Tapp until a mysterious figure called Pighead captures her to pose her escape and keep her covered as Jigsaw's secret apprentice."; "This was due to the fact that her son was kidnapped by Jigsaw and he had Pighead sew her mouth shut to avoid her spoiling Tapp's test"
  • WP:MOS edits needed - WP:OVERLINK, capitalization ("Detective Sing's Widow"?), etc
  • Quite a bit of information overlaps between sections, and the plot section is over-emphasized
  • Use of non-high-quality reliable sources - for example, multiple YouTube videos, forums and fansites, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. In addition to the concerns listed by Nikkimaria, the two images used in the article's body are either unusable or use formulaic and generic arguments for use. The gameplay image argues that the image is being used in an informative way and does not limit the developer's ability to sell the game, which is absolutely not an acceptable rationale, even for a Good article. The image in the Development section is said to demonstrate the design of the protagonist David Tapp - however, the character's physical design does not seem to be discussed at any point in the article from a developmental standpoint, making the image purely decorative. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, lot of work, but not yet ready, needs a thorough copyedit by a third party, and better sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:44, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it seems unanimous that this article needs work, and more than can be fixed quickly to keep this nomination going (getting all new sources, rewriting the prose, and copyediting) so I think this nomination should be closed and I will go ahead and submit this article to the Copyeditors to fix it up. I will peer review before I nominate again, but I have already PR'ed twice and nobody commented either time :( GroundZ3R0 002 02:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly the problem with the system, especially with video games. Instead of Peer review, do someone a big favour that will net you a copyedit slave. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Courcelles 05:14, 6 May 2011 [26].

Irresistible (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Novice7 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the issues raised in the last nomination have been addressed. I've been working on this article for quite some time now, and feel it's ready for another FA process. I'll also try my very best to address any issues remaining unnoticed. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images/sound files check out. The non-free content clearly meets our criteria and solid rationales are presented; other images are free and well documented. J Milburn (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing. Novice7 (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done (were an issue last time, will check within the next few days)

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for publishers
I think I've fixed them. Can you point out a few examples, if possible?
  • In general, printed source titles (magazines, etc) should be italicized
Done.
  • Ref 20: page(s)?
It is an Audio Biography. I've provided the time too.
  • Watch for small inconsistencies like doubled periods, inconsistent wikilinking, etc
Removed and fixed.
Not fixed - examples are refs 67 and 62. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed them. Please do tell me if there are any inconsistencies. Novice7 (talk) 10:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give state instead of country names for US-based publishers
I believe they're fixed. Please do tell me if they're not.
Sorry, but they're not. Most of the CD/DVD references use only "United States", and the two Further reading sources give City, US instead of City, State (or even City, State, US if you think confusion is likely). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed all of them to City, State. Should I add Country too (although most are based in the US)? Novice7 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So long as you're giving states, I wouldn't bother with US; for non-US, probably provide countries for lesser-known places. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will. Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you justify your use of this, given that it is a gossip site? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing. I have used PopSugar to source the performance and the wardrobe. The MTV source covers it, but the Sugar source says more about it. Novice7 (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, although I still haven't done spotchecks. As a procedural note, could you provide diffs to the notifications you mentioned below? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added diffs. Novice7 (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks/WP:V

  • "There was a really good flow to [that] song" - why the square brackets? "that" is included in the original quote. Also, please see MOS:ELLIPSIS (Rechecked 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC), still issues with ellipses and bracketing)
Can you provide me with one or two examples from the article? Novice7 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they're fixed. Novice7 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Musically, it is a moderately-paced dance-pop song with R&B influences" - source calls it "R&B lite", but I don't see anything about the pace or dance-pop
  • "breathy vocals" is a direct quote from the source
  • an ode to love "at step one" - "ode to love" is also a direct quote from the source and should be within the quotation marks. Please check for other instances of this
  • This link appears to be broken
  • "It samples Club Nouveau's "Why You Treat Me So Bad" (1987) and Kool & the Gang's "Jungle Boogie" (1973)." - source only mentions the second of these
  • "soulful ornamental vocals and Giorgio Moroder-styled disco strings" vs "soulful ornamental vocals and Giorgio Moroder-style disco strings" - overly close paraphrasing, check for other instances
Added correct references, fixed quotes and reworded. As for the pluggedin.ca link, did you mean pluggedin.com? Novice7 (talk) 15:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - it's a location-specific site. When you click it you get US, I get Canadian. In that case, could you provide an archiveurl? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know it was location specific too. Added archivelink. Novice7 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until these issues are addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might be misinterpreting this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought they're commenting positively on the video for not following the same style as Spears and Aguilera... Novice7 (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Novice7 (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Anders Bagge and Arnthor Birgisson developed the song's and co-wrote it with Sheyne." - "song's" here doesn't make sense.
  • "while they criticized Simpson's singing, the sexual nature of the song's lyrics and its digital quality." - "digital quality" here is confusing. At first reading, I was wondering if they were commenting on an audio format? (I assume they're complaining about too many digital sound effects).
  • "The song peaked at number eleven on the UK Singles Chart, and at number fifteen on the United States Billboard Hot 100. It also reached the top twenty in nine other countries." - These two sentences would flow better if combined.
  • "Simpson traveled back to Sony Music Studios, New York City to record the additional vocals." - 'the' is not needed here before 'additional'.
  • "She enters a building to fulfill her mission, which apparently is to compromise evidence in a laboratory." - wording here doesn't seem very encyclopedic.
  • "she has completed her mission." how do you know? (WP:OR?)

Jujutacular talk 16:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I have fixed the issues. Novice7 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the prose of the article. Jujutacular talk 11:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (Diff – [27])Novice7 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support - Reads nicely, sourcing looks good, nice coverage and length, good use of photos. I see no reason not to give my support. Nice work :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Novice7 (talk) 12:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Amazing work done here. Definitely FA material! I might go through the article tomorrow and see if I can find anything needing fixing. At quick glance, I was just wondering if lyrics are allowed to be linked in external links? From my understanding, there aren't. And also, the VH1 video says it isn't available in my region, so I think you should probably use a link to YouTube or something, where everyone can have access to it. ℥nding·start 03:50, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thank you! I was hesitant to add the lyrics at first but, when I looked at WP:SONG#LYRICS it stated they can be added. Rhapsody posts officially licensed lyrics (Gracenote), so I added it in. As for the music video, I'll replace it. Thanks again. Novice7 (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments - First off all, great work on this article. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A mid-tempo dance-pop song with R&B and funk influences, the song is composed in the key of C major, and features a beat similar to that of Pink's song "There You Go", released in 2000." Does not flow right, i hate when paragraphs start with "A". I would change this sentence to [...] "The song is a [...] influences, it is composed [...]"
    • "and ARIA year-end" change to "Australian year-end"
    • "A music video for the So So Def remix featured scenes by Dupri and Lil' Bow Wow inter-cut with scenes by Simpson" i think you mean "with scenes of Simpson".
    • Chart performance, what does an image of her performing "Rockin" have to do with this article?
As there are no pictures from the DreamChaser tour, I added this image in to show the change in her style. Should I remove it? Novice7 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please remove it as it doesn't relate to this article directly. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im not seeing anything else really but i havnt checked your reference formatting yet, i will do that at a later time. (Ping me once these issues are addressed please) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 05:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you so much! Novice7 (talk) 06:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I failed to find any outstanding issues with is article so i will support it. Great work. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the image. Novice7 (talk) 06:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (Note that I had notified Lakeshade of the nomination. I tried my best not to canvass for a s/o. Thanks. Diff – [28])[reply]

Support - After issues pointed out by fellow editors, I don't see anything wrong with this nom, however I would put (pictured) in Aguilera's caption. Thanks for notifying me Novice? Candyo32 14:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added that. (Please note that I had notified Candyo32 of the nomination Diff – [29])
  • Support - Still convinced that the prose is close enough. Overall a great article. Nice work. ceranthor 15:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Novice7 (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC) (I had notified. Diff – [30])[reply]
  • It is a pretty good article, but I do have some issues with it.
  • Put a comma after Jessica Simpson and before released in the lead.
Done.
  • Put the image in live performances to the left per WP:IMAGES: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text."
Done.
  • Also, what happened to the other images that were here before?
I was asked to remove it.
Why? -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it added nothing to the article/section. Novice7 (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove links for singer-songwriter, Colombian, and min-skirt.
Done.
  • Per WP:BADCHARTS, removed information about video countdowns.
WP:BADCHARTS says nothing about video countdowns. I believe that video countdown shows are fine because there are no sales charts or similar for videos. Adabow (talk · contribs) 01:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added it in to show the success of the video. Novice7 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adabow, it says "Viacom/MTV Networks Countdowns (VH1 VSpot and CMT Top 20 Countdowns): Both programs formerly used a mix of network airplay and radio popularity with some minor viewer feedback to compile their lists, but now only depend entirely on viewer text messaging and internet voting to compile their lists and encourage multiple votes, along with a limited pool of videos chosen by viewers to fill the list." As for its inclusion for success, I don't think it is needed. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Were the rules changed before 2002? Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 16:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if I keep the Billboard sourced MTV Countdown and remove MuchMusic one? Novice7 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both are fine. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, I can remove the MuchMusic source or keep them both? Novice7 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not removed them. Is it okay? Novice7 (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead and the article ins't cohesive in release years. For example, it says "1973 song 'Jungle Boogie'" and uses parenthesis to indicate the release year of Lizzie McGuire and says "released in 2001" for Festivalbar.
Done.
There is still differences between the years of tours and more. I suggest using the brackets option as it is the most common in the article. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. (Diff of notification – [31]) Novice7 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please paraphrase the giant block quote on the first section.
I feel Birgisson's opinion is relevant in this case, and quoted material expresses his views more clearly. That's why I kept the quote, but removed the blockquote. Novice7 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is better to leave it as a blockquote. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should I? I mean, I was thinking of removing the blockquote myself as it had many insignificant statements. It has been cut down to include only the important sentences. Novice7 (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to paraphrase it and it's that long, then yes. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 19:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Converted back. Novice7 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In late 2001, Simpson traveled to Cancún, Mexico, and sang the song as part of MTV's Spring Break program." No need to say she traveled. Just say the program was in Cancun.
  • "at The Monkey Club, Paris, France" -> "at The Monkey Club in Paris, France".
  • "along with "I Wanna Love You Forever", "I Think I'm in Love with You", and "A Little Bit".[89]" I think its irrelevant to list the other songs she performed.
  • Why do you capitalized the certification level? I don't think gold should be capitalized.
  • "An editor for The Advocate" -> "An editor of The Advocate" to keep consistency with the rest of the section.
  • Why is DreamChaser italicized? Tours shouldn't be italicized. And refer to it by its whole name. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done. Novice7 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Novice7 (talk) 07:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that all my comments were tkae care of, I support this article becoming an FA. -- ipodnano05 * leave@message 22:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ipodnano05. Novice7 (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the issue of the release date arised in the previous FAC has not been dealt with. The claim "Columbia Records first released "Irresistible" on May 30, 2001" both in the text and the lead is unsourced. It is currently referenced with a release date for Amazon France that only represents Amazon(one of many outlets) and only represents France(one of many countries releasing the song), it's not a high quality source even if it contained the claim first released of 'Irresistible' which it does not. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Sony Music, Columbia sources and removed Amazon refs. {{Infobox single}} states "earliest known date". As Infobox and lead should be consistent, I used the first date (now June 25, 2001 – verified by Sony Music reference). As for Amazon, the release dates there are provided by the label. I feel it is reliable enough for sourcing release dates. Novice7 (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the release date "earliest known date" with June 25, 2001 when just yesterday it was May 30, 2001 for Amazon France screams an obvious false claim because May 30, 2001 (a known release date) is clearly earlier then June 25, 2001. In respect of the release date this article has consistantly failed the FACR criteria 1. (c) well-researched(Not to mention the GA Factually accurate criteria) and moves between different versions of unverified claims. The editors involved need to stick to the facts and stop making up misleading claims and if they can't be suitably referenced remove them from the article. It addition, a release date meaning of "earliest known date" is not in the article, readers should not have to read the template documentation(!) to understand what is meant and so any meaning should be clearly visible to the reader in the article possibly via a NB footnote. Amazon release dates only apply to Amazon, to imply any more is improper synthesis. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a research of over two hours, I have added reliable, label sources to support the release date. I removed Amazon.com reference, because I found many threads regarding its reliability. As this is an FA candidate, I believe it has to be sourced by reliable sources. I actually researched a lot (both online and offline sources – books, magazines and newspapers). I don't want to make false claims, I added the release dates from Amazon. I thought it was reliable as many FAs use it to source release dates. I have now changed the reference to reliable, Sony Music references. I previously used Amazon, because I could not find any label source. I won't change it again, ad it is correctly sourced now. Please don't take me wrong. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 05:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now we have a new date of April 12, 2001 that is sourced to Sony UK and Ireland and it's use in the article is indicated as earliest known date that is better. It's a little uncomfortable that the Sony archive doesn't indicate what the date means but am prepared to accept it now and therefore strike my oppose. Note that previous release dates used in this article including the point it became GA listed are apparently incorrect. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the note. Yes, for the GA I used Allmusic source, but it was not clear. It just said "Import CD". I was asked to remove it later. Novice7 (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria's oppose was for close paraphrasing and adherence to sources-- that needs to be examined by other reviewers and resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1a: Sorry, but the prose is not up to standard for a FA. I've checked the lead and first section and there are multiple prose issues. I appreciate that a huge amount of work has gone into this, but it needs a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor (probably someone unfamiliar with the topic) and this is best done away from FAC. Here are some examples, but they are samples only.

  • There are 20 sentences in the lead: 10 begin with "the", a further eight begin with a simple subject-verb structure. This is not professional quality prose. The first section of the main article seems to follow the same pattern, suggesting this is a problem throughout the article.
  • Following from this, the sentences are choppy and do not flow. The ideas seem to jump around.
  • "released as the lead single from her second studio album of the same name (2001). The single was first released...": Repetition of single in close proximity.
  • "Work on "Irresistible" commenced after singer-songwriter Pamela Sheyne proposed the title": This suggests no-one had thought anything about the song, someone came up with a random title and then they wrote the song afterwards. Is this correct?
  • There are multiple instances of redundancy in the prose: for example, "The lyrics are more sexually suggestive than those of Simpson's previous songs".
  • "Critics gave "Irresistible" mixed to negative reviews": What are "mixed to negative reviews"? They are mixed, or negative.
  • "Some praised the song for its themes of new-found love and its production, while others criticized Simpson's singing, the sexual nature of the song's lyrics, and the over-usage of digital sound manipulators.": These are not mixed negative, they are a mixture of positive and negative. Also, an idea of quantity would be good. Were more critics positive or negative?
  • "Despite missing the top twenty in Australia, it was certified gold by the Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)." This needs a little elaboration to explain the connection, for example "... it sold enough copies to be certified gold ..."
  • "Tommy Mottola, Sony Music Chairman and CEO, was conversant with Bagge...": Conversant does not mean "have a conversation with", as it seems to be used here.
  • "Birgisson said that they wrote "Irresistible" afresh with Simpson in mind": This suggests that they wrote the song and then wrote it again to make it work for Simpson.
  • "After recording the primary vocals at Murlyn Studio Group, Simpson traveled back to Sony Music Studios, New York City to record additional vocals.[6] All the vocals were recorded...": Repetition of "record" and "vocals". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw the nomination and work on the article to make it better. Thanks. Novice7 (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Nikkimaria 04:06, 6 May 2011 [32].

Campus of University of the Philippines Los Baños[edit]

Nominator(s): Moray An Par (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Moray An Par (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I don't feel this article yet meets the FA criteria

  • The article needs extensive copy-editing. Some examples: "The MFR serves a an outdoor laboratory to students", "It comprises of 5,445 hectares", etc
  • WP:MOS edits needed - WP:OVERLINK, spell out "%" and numbers under 10, etc
  • According to Commons, the Philippines does not have freedom of panorama, so photos of 3D works (including buildings) need to have their licensing reviewed
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • You're using a lot of UPLB-based sources - are more third-party sources available? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected and reworded those two. I've removed the links that are for common words and are not really necessary to the article. I am having second thoughts in removing links for dean and chancellor though. All multi-page pdf files now have page numbers. Yes, I am very well aware that most of the sources are UPLB-published but I don't think that there are alternative sources. The sources, at least most of them, are non-promotional anyways.
As for the freedom of panorama, I wasn't aware that it could be problematic. I've read the law and it says "187.2. The permission granted under Subsection 187.1 shall not extend to the reproduction of: (a) A work of architecture in the form of building or other construction;" section 187.2 being about reasonable exemptions that are not copyright infringement. Hmm so does that mean that building have to be older than 25 years (the copyright duration of applied art (includes erected buildings) in the Philippines before they can be displayed in Wikipedia and be considered free? Moray An Par (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As for the freedom of panorama issue, the carillon image is the only one that is not older than 25 years. I am not sure if it passes fair use. Moray An Par (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I agree with Nikkimaria in that this article is in dire need of extensive copy-editing, preferably by a new set of eyes. Although I can see that you corrected the two examples listed above (and several other editors have taken to correcting obvious typos, etc.), a copy-edit has not been completed. There are various issues throughout, which unfortunately make the article difficult to read. Here are a few examples, which are not exhaustive:
  • The University of the Philippines (UP) Board of Regents initially purchased 72.63 hectares of abandoned farmland in 1909 at the foot of Mount Makiling to serve as the campus of the newly created UP College of Agriculture (UPCA) with students taking part in clearing the forest area. -- run on sentence.
  • Classes were first held in tents while practical instruction were done at the plantations, such as corn, sugar cane and tobacco, in the campus. -- So many things wrong with one sentence. Practical instruction = singular; at corn, sugar cane and tobacco plantations; on campus.
  • some still exist up to this day
  • Aside from international assistance, Five-Year Development Programs in during the terms of Dean Domingo Lantican
  • A memorandum issued by Chancellor Luis Rey I. Velasco in 2010 instructs UPLB to conserve energy in hopes of reducing operating costs. -- past tense, not present

It goes on. Although I see that the article was promoted to GA about a week ago, I don't believe it's polished enough to warrant a star at the moment. I suggest withdrawal for now, so that you can better allocate time to writing prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" (WP:WIAFA). Perhaps look into requesting a Peer Review, as well as input from the Guild of Copy-editors before considering another FAC nomination. Good luck! María (habla conmigo) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Understood. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Thank you for acquainting me the guild of copy editors. I didn't know one existed. Moray An Par (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do I withdraw this nomination anyway? Moray An Par (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do it; just leave the template on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Would this count as a failed FAC? I just something on the PR page saying that one cannot file for PR if its less than 2 weeks since its last fail FAC. Moray An Par (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. Technically it's withdrawn, but since there are "opposes of substance" it's listed in articlehistory as a fail. Maybe ask over there whether you can file for PR? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope the regulars at PR would understand, seeing as how you opted to withdraw after a PR/copyedit was suggested. If it did end up becoming a problem, however, maybe GOCE first and then PR? You can also ask for an informal PR from editors who may want to leave comments/suggestions on the article's talk page. Best of luck! María (habla conmigo) 12:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thank you. I have filed a request at the GOCE to avoid technicalities regarding the PR. I hope by the time the copy-editing ends, it's already ready to become FA. Moray An Par (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 13:27, 5 May 2011 [33].

Frank Buckles[edit]

  • WITHDRAWN: Comments that have been made have ranged to helpful and welcomed to malicious and pointless. It is that last group that forces me and AYW to pull this FAC. Instead of working to make a better article, some of this group decided to take every single part of the article literally, fix things that didn't need fixing, make contradictory statements and just all around be unhelpful. I would say I am surprised, but from what I have seen, this is just par-for-the-course at this point. Again, withdrawn. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely, except that I have no problem with people taking every part of the article literally. The main point is that this has been mostly time well spent. It's a damn fine article now, and readers don't notice the tiny gold stars anyway. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Co-Nominators: Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC) and User:Anythingyouwant‎ joins as co-nominator as to current version (02:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the article was promoted to GA in March 2011 and A-Class just this morning. With work between some 10 different editors, I feel we have gotten this article to FA-Class. Work on the article began immediately after Buckles' passing on February 27, 2011 and has continued until the present and will continue as long as necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • In responses to changes, I will sign as NH, but with a full signature at the bottom. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum[edit]

  • Oppose. I'm afraid that A-class review or not, this is not yet the finished article, and I think the whole thing reads rather awkwardly. A few examples:
  • "Seven of Buckles' ancestors were soldiers in the Revolutionary War, and he was also descended from a Civil War soldier." What is the "also" adding there?
Took the "also" out. - NH
  • "Frank survived, while Ashman died from the disease ...". So the two events happened simultaneously?
Yes, they both got scarlet fever at the same time - NH
The two events here are survival and dying, which couldn't have happened simultaneously. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the source we have says "He said destiny seemed to side with him early, in 1903, when he and his brother Ashman fell deathly ill together with scarlet fever. Ashman, 4, succumbed; Mr. Buckles pulled through and experienced a century." We can't tell if Ashman passed and then Wood (Frank) got better or Frank got better and then Ashman passed. We just don't have that information. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "while" to "but".Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... who incorrectly diagnosed him with flat feet". So the Navy had flat feet while they were diagnosing him? Better would be "who incorrectly diagnosed him as having flat feet".
Changed. - NH
  • "... and also an avid reader of newspapers." Once again, what is the "also" adding there?
Removed. - NH
  • "President Barack Obama ordered that the American flag be flown at half-staff on all government buildings, U.S. embassies, and at the White House". Is the White House not a government building?
Changed it to read "...all government buildings, including The White House and at all U.S. embassies..." - NH
  • Statements were made by representatives and senators paying tribute to Buckles and the World War I veterans ...". Difficult to know where to start with that abortion. What about "Representatives and senators issued statements paying tribute to Buckles and the World War I veterans"?
Removed. - NH
I could go on and on, but I repeat, this just isn't ready. Malleus Fatuorum 00:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually do go on. If you go on, I can fix it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAC isn't peer review, which is where I'd recommend taking this article. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A review was just completed on April 5, 2011, the reviewer was User:Wehwalt, while at the same time the A-Class review was going on. We had dual reviews. I don't see where another PR would be helpful. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care if God Almighty was the reviewer, but in my opinion this article falls far short of the prose requirement for FAC. Others may of course disagree, including I suppose the saintly Wehwalt, but that remains my opinion nevertheless. Take it as you will. Malleus Fatuorum 01:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take full blame for the word "also", and will now scour the article for any other unnecessary uses of that word.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done (two others removed). Since this tiny problem constituted 33% of Monsieur (or Mademoiselle) Fatuorum's examples, I presume that Malleus would now agree that the article is 33% better. In any event, Malleus has apparently recused after belatedly describing a conflict of interest,[34] or some such thing that seems to render his comments above void.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would agree to no such thing. My oppose stands. Malleus Fatuorum 02:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so your oppose stands against the version of the article that existed when you were "excusing myself from any further comment at Buckles' FAC".Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll spell it out for you again. I do not believe that this article has been substantially improved since I first commented and I have yet to see any evidence that it is being improved sufficiently to meet the FA prose criteria. I think that Ceoil's observation that the prose is "pedestrian" was rather kind. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Ceoil didn't oppose (yet), so you're more than welcome to un-excuse yourself and take that same stance. The lead was badly flawed when Ceoil read it, and I think that's mainly what Ceoil was commenting about. Anyway, have a nice day, MF. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall suggesting that Ceoil had opposed, but I have and my oppose stands, as I've said. I am completely unimpressed by your efforts to brush my concerns about the poor quality of this article's prose aside, but ultimately it's for the delegates to decide whether you're right or I am. Malleus Fatuorum 01:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, thank you, your oppose and comments have been recorded. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By whom have they been recorded? Malleus Fatuorum 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You take things far too literal and I am really not in the mood to play tonight. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably you meant "literally". Do you have no interest in writing decent prose? Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, ain't bitin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Neutral, leaning oppose per some resolved issues and additional commentary below. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose - Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conventionally footnotes appear in numerical order
    • Sorry about that, now in numerical order. - NH
  • Be consistent in whether you use First/Second World War or World War I/II
    • We did that to kinda change up the language so it wasn't the same, but I see your point. Switched to just "World War I/II". - NH
  • Dictionary.com - seeing as this is being used to define a term rather than actually source information, I would suggest replacing it with a Wikipedia or Wiktionary link, or possibly an explanatory note
    • Went with the Wikitionary link. - NH
  • Can you explain your use of Ancestry.com? When I click on the links, I reach a "choose a membership option" page
    • I was given permission for these per this RSN thread. - NH
      • Okay, to clarify: you're citing a transcription of census results? I'm not in the US, so I can't get much beyond the "choose a membership" page on the .com version (on that note, you might add a "subscription/fee needed" tag on those refs if they're kept). Have you accounted for the census shortcomings pointed out at the RSN discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have and I can include a secondary link (here) on one of the Ancestry.com links, but I am not sure if that one would meet up with WP:RS policy. - NH
          • Likely not. Any chance you could refer directly to the census via a library or university?
            • I will try and do this while out tomorrow. I will use the library connection to edit the page with a direct link. - NH
  • Censuses generally are not published in the year they are conducted
    • I wasn't really sure on this one (didn't have information), so I just put the year it was done in. Should I just take the year out? - NH
      • Given that the year is in the title, probably. Alternatively, you might look for the date it was published on the website, if available. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, will have to track down someone with access as my 14 day trial ran out. - NH
          • Any progress on this? I see one of the censuses still has a date, though I'm not sure why, and none of the others do. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • No Ma'am, but I will try and do this while out tomorrow. I will use the library connection to edit the page with a direct link. - NH
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publishers for newspapers
    • There are a couple that I couldn't find the publishing company's name, like for Refs #9, #17, #18, #31, #45, #51, #53, #55, #62, and #72. All was given on the pages was a copyright that listed the paper, which is done on most papers, not the company. I made every attempt to find the publishing company though. - NH
  • Check italicization and other formatting details in references; a number of them have formatting problems
    • Clarification on this one is needed. I was told that the italicization was automatic (with the "work" and "publisher" fields) and the "publisher" field didn't require italics. - NH
      • I don't follow - if publisher is automatically italicized and publisher doesn't require italics, that seems contradictory, does it not? Or did you mean something else? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I might have been confused on what italicization and formatting were needed. Perhaps you can provide an example? - NH
          • Okay. For example, why is WCTI-TV italicized and WHTM-TV not? They're both TV stations, so surely they should be formatted similarly? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • These were mistakes on my part, stuff I overlooked when making corrections, which have now been corrected. The only italic codes in the references section are in references that do not have a "work" field. - NH
              • Sorry, but there are still issues with this. For example, "United States Army" is not a work or publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sorry, I was just "giving credit where credit was due". Will remove. - NH
                  • You don't have to remove it, just reformat - it shouldn't be italicized. Also check for other formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Sorry for the slow reply, crashed out for awhile. Had a very active morning Thursday morning due to tornadoes. Had rotation over my town and a tornado to the south of me. Interesting. Anywho, I have readded the part I took out, but it is now in the "author" field instead of "work". I left the Library of Congress as publisher, since they are the ones who published it online. - NH
  • Provide page numbers for multi-page PDFs
    • Due to a continous technical error on Adobe, I can't see Ref #52, one was corrected (adding page "B2", the others have their pages listed. - NH
      • AYW, do you have access to that source (now 54)? Also, that source has volume/issue number that should be added. Nikkimaria (talk)
        • Done. -AYW
  • Publisher for ref 58?
    • Goof on my part, which I fixed. - NH
  • Use a consistent date format
    • From what I can see, all dates are in either a Month/Day, Month/Year or Month/Day/Year format, none are in the military style or Day/Month/Year. - NH
      • Current ref 84 from a quick glance, maybe others. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Taken care of 84, checked others, but got dyslexic, have enlisted AYW's help on this one. - NH
  • In general, reference formatting should be more consistent
  • File:United_States_Department_of_the_Army_Seal.svg needs source
    • This isn't a source I uploaded, just something that is made apart of most templates, per the sourcing problem, I have removed it and the Corporal stripes as decorative. - NH
      • No you haven't - it's the portal image. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good eye, forgot it were there too. Gimme a moment on that one, might take some time. - NH
          • I took this to ANI as I am unsure the best way to deal with this image. Since it is part of a portal (that is used on hundreds of articles) can we overlook it for the time being and work on the rest? - NH
  • File:Frank_Buckles_lying_in_honor_on_March_15,_2011.jpg should give actual photographer's name, not just DoD
    • Fixed. - NH
  • File:Frank_Buckles_Army_Ribbons.PNG - these are insignias, not logos. Incorrect licensing
    • Posted comment on your talk. - NH
      • Still issues with this - tagged CC but with a FUR? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed. - NH
  • File:WW_I_Prussian_enlisted_man's_belt_buckle_front.JPG - since the photographed item is 3D, you also need to account for its copyright status in licensing
    • Again, this is not one I uploaded, just one I was made aware of. Plus, I am unsure how to list something as 3D. - NH
    • I thought the 3D issue was only for photos without explicit licenses. This one is from Commons and was released as CC-SA by the photographer/uploader, so unless I'm confused there shouldn't be a problem. The buckle artwork itself is presumably public domain because of its age (WW1 era). 69.111.194.167 (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For 3D you need licensing for both the photo and the 3D thing itself - the buckle itself may be PD (given the age, it probably is), but that still needs to be explicitly explained/tagged on the image page. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Due to this being on Commons and them frowning upon anything PD, I am having to get some help on this one, please stand by. - NH
          • Commons is happy with PD so long as tagging and sourcing is appropriate. Progress on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologizes, I was told that PD was not allowed on Commons, sorry. I have asked on Commons' AN for help (not familiar with their tags). - NH
              • Just looked in on the Commons:AN post, no responses yet, but it is 5am EDT. - NH
  • File:US_Army_E-4.svg - source link is dead
    • Taken out with the US Army image. - NH
  • The second paragraph of Early life is largely unnecessary background
    • Removed. ---AYW
  • "Between 1911 and 1916, Frank attended school in Nevada, Missouri,[14] after which the family moved to the town of Oakwood, Oklahoma, where Frank attended high school, while working at a bank" - awkward phrasing, check for others
    • I made a clarification, as the school he was in from '11 to '16 would be today considered Middle School or Junior High (depending on where you are) and fixed the wording on the second half of the sentence. - NH
      • Have you gone through and checked for other awkward or unclear phrasings? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be distinguishing between "prisoner" and "internee", but do not explain this distinction and use both terms to refer to Buckles
    • This is my doing here. Let me explain. At first we had Buckles listed as a Prisoner of War, then there was some question as if that were a correct title, so we switched it to Civilian Internee, but I left both in there cause I wasn't sure if the military POWs and civilian internees were in the same area. We don't have information on that, plus, there is still concern on what is the correct title for Buckles, so I was kinda going to happy medium. - NH
      • The article properly emphasizes that he was a civilian, and also properly describes him as a prisoner. As for the phrase "prisoners and internees", that phrase seems more wordy and confusing than necessary, so I changed it to "captives". ---AYW
  • "near Charles Town, West Virginia" - link please?
    • The source for this is here (far bottom). - NH
      • Wikilink, not source - I'm Canadian, if I hadn't checked the article about the farm I probably would've noted "Charles Town" as a strange typo of "Charleston". Remember you've got non-specialists, non-Americans, etc reading and need to explain more for them then for yourself (although without overdoing it). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, misunderstood. I thought we had a Wikilink there (we did alot of moving around in that section. Wikilink has been added. - NH
  • Paragraph about "secret of long life" needs reworking. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was three sentences is now two, though mostly unchanged. I am going to ask AYW on this one as he is a better writer than I, so please stand by. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I rephrased that paragraph a little. It's not Shakespeare, but it clearly prescribes how to get to be 110. I also did some other rephrases (verbal stylings, if you will), and hopefully the article reads a little smoother now. If it don't, that ain't as important as the content anywho.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left some queries above, but can't do a full re-review at this point due to RL time demands. Will try to come back to this in a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a re-review. Some progress has been made, but some of the issues raised above have not been addressed (see commentary point-by-point). Further comments:
Is his mother's maiden name known?
Not that I have been able to find. The 1890 Census had them already married and didn't show a maiden name. - NH
  • "He was turned down by the Marine Corps because of his slight weight and for being under 21" - phrasing is a bit strange, look for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • "A sergeant advised...Another sergeant advised" - repetitive, look for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • "their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler" - that's rather vague. What does "brought down" mean here? Loss of economic prosperity or lower standard of living? Sadness? Total annihilation? Check for other ambiguous or unclear wordings
    • I assume "brought down" means "destroyed". Source is vague, so we are too. Still seems interesting though. -AYW
      • Yeah, the sources are vague on alot of these, so we kinda have to be vague outselves as to not "create" information that isn't there. - NH
  • "Riding out the Great Depression at sea" - phrasing's a bit too informal, check for others
    • Done. -AYW
  • What happened between 1955 and 1999? Obviously few details will be available, but a bit more context would help. When did his daughter leave? You mention ancestors - his or hers?
    • Clarified they were his ancestors. Looks like not much happened between 1955 and 1999 aside from lots of peace and quiet. Will look for more. -AYW
  • "He was the oldest person who ever testified before Congress." - phrasing suggests that he is no longer the oldest to have testified. Has someone older done so? If not, rephrase
    • Fixed. -AYW
  • If the documentary is being released before the end of the year, have any other details been confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I have from the official website is "Coming 2011", but the official Facebook page for the docu has "Release Date: 2012". So I really can't give you anything other than that, as nothing more as been released. I think it is only one or two people working on the project. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant[edit]

Support - I've edited this article quite a bit lately, but would not have considered it feature-class before yesterday. The changes made in response to the comments above make the difference, in my opinion. The subject is certainly interesting. He probably saw our BLP when he was still alive, and this BDP is light-years better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC) (Striking because I'm joining as co-nominator.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Dank[edit]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, but I share Nikki's reservations about the "secret of long life" paragraph. My preference would be to limit him to one witticism, but it's not a strong preference. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken another crack at that paragraph. I'm afraid of deleting too much, for fear that it might cost someone their life.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

  • Comment The first and last paragraphs of the lead make the same veteran claims. Please merge. From what I read, the prose are pedestrain, to the point of off putting. List of egs to follow. Ceoil 14:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Ceoil, good to see you. Per NPOV, I try to pay attention to the tone of the sources taken as a whole. Understandably, sources didn't start writing about this guy until recently, and of course, it's all "feel-good" and informal stuff. I think the current language is one attempt to reflect the sources, but there's lots of room to fiddle here, and I'm looking forward to your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 14:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm looking forward to the further suggestions too. Regarding the lead, I removed the veteran claims from the last paragraph, even though they were a bit different from the ones in the first paragraph. Of course, the removed facts remain in the body of the article. His primary notability was as the last US vet of WWI, and one of the last 3 in the world, so the lead need not add that at the time of death he was the oldest WWI vet in the world (or the last field veteran of that war).Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[moving the discussion about second commas to the talk page - Dank (push to talk) 17:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Although Ceoil mentioned pedestrian prose in the lead, there's only so much you can do with pedestrian facts. So, I've removed some pedestrian stuff from the lead that's true of millions of other people. That stuff remains in the body of the article. For example, the fact that he got an honorable discharge, and that he served stateside in the National Guard, and that he had a daughter. With the pedestrian facts out of the lead, I've upgraded the prose in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't so much that the content of the article is uninteresting, I dont think that, it was more that some of the wording was flat and a but choppy. It better now. I might tweak myself later on. FWIT worth, I think other wise the article is strong, and so am optimistic amout this one. My comment looked harsh in hinsight, was not intended to be so. Ceoil 14:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One small thing, and I dont feel too strongly abiout it, but is the see also section needed? Categories do that job well enough, and I'm not fond of see alsos in general. Ceoil 15:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not myself either. Lemme see what I can do to lessen the need for the "see also" section. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pedestrian is not harsh. Pedantic might be, and putrid definitely would be. But pedestrian is not. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cut the "see also"s outright. The information is in the article with sources, so wikilinking to a list would just be overlinking and seen as unnecessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Putrid is a good line, I might refracter. Ceoil 23:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88[edit]

Comment - I haven't read the entire article but at first glance see problems with overciting and overlinking. Why are there 17 citiations for 8 sentences in the "Early life" section? This seems to be a pattern throughout. As for the links - the sea-of-blue needs to be reduced. Consider each link carefully and decide whether it's necessary to the reader. For example, it's not really necessary to link World War I and World War II, or flat feet. These are only examples, there are many more. Also, I have a question - it seems that Anythingyouwant (talk · contribs) is the primary contributor so why haven't they been added as a co-nom? Btw - I probably won't have time to return, so don't expect to oppose or support at this point. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm not sure what the etiquette is, but at this point the article seems good enough for me to feel comfortable co-nominating, and striking my support. I'll give that a try in a minute, and will also be trying to address the overciting and overlinking issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I didn't know how to co-nom someone and didn't want to "half ass it", so I left it with me. Nothing held against AYW, just didn't know how. I gave it a shot above, please correct as needed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WWI and WWI are typically linked at first occurrence in Milhist articles. Diagnoses are generally linked; most readers don't know what most diagnoses mean. Many reviewers looked at the linking in the A-class review, but there's probably some leeway available if there are other terms you'd like to see delinked. - Dank (push to talk) 02:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
...and I was told to link the first occurrence not counting the lede. So technically, they are in there twice. That potentially could be my fault. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, some say link once after the lead, some say including the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One reason why the "early life" section is a bit heavy on footnotes is because four of the footnotes are for census records that NH found to describe family members. I've just cut four footnotes that aren't essential, so it's down to 13 footnotes in the "early life" section. Regarding the number of citations in later sections, there are a couple reasons why I don't think we can cut a lot of them. First, citations are not just for verifiability but also so readers can go get elaboration (e.g. further closely-related information); therefore, we're allowing that two newspaper articles might both provide verification but provide very different elaborations, so both are cited. The other reason has to do with the fact that verification alone may require multiple refs for a single sentence, because we're not using comprehensive biographies as sources but rather we're using many media sources that often provide little snippets of biographical info in each source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies and comments: I think this is topic worth covering, but I think he deserves a really good page. I'm seeing room for improvement, so examples to follow:

  • Ancestry.com is probably not the best site to use. Suggest sticking with what's available in secondary sources
  • Delink items such as Kansas, Great Britain, United States Senate. These are only examples. Also, town names don't need to be linked with town/state - use a pipe to link only to town and reduce the blue.
  • The Library of Congress has a lot amount of information about him that looks interesting [36]. Have all of these documents been looked at, the interviews listened to, and the images examined to determine copyright status? I'd think the other image of him in uniform would be free if it's a .gov photo. The interviews look very interesting; I can't tell from the page how much of that information has been incorporated.
  • The proper term is internee for the Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. Those men went through an absolutely horrible ordeal and few survived. This is something I happen to know about because I've read a book about it, but other readers probably don't know. I'd suggest digging more and adding more. Where exactly in the Phillipines was he captured and why? (Btw - no need to link both Manila and Phillipines). You're linking to Raid at Los Baños - was he part of the raid or not. If so, check the sources at the bottom of that page - might have some handy information.
  • I understand that you want to get this done by a certain date to run on the front page. I'd suggest working on it slowly, dig for more information, polish the page as much as possible, and try to have it run on Veteran's Day, which would be appropriate. That give plenty of time to produce a really nice product, rather than one that's been rushed, and reduces stress levels. Anyway, my 2 cents. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am heading off to church (along with most of the rest of the Christian world this morning) and will respond to these when I get back (don't have enough time). AYW might be catch them before I, though. Happy Easter. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "weight below 100 pounds". This is a local unit. A value in kg would be useful to many readers.
  • It says "which he kept as a souvenir for the rest of his life". The sentence is tautological. I suggest deleting the phrase 'as a souvenir'.
  • The title "World War II and married years" is a bit strange. Marriage and world wars aren't naturally paired. Can this be revised?

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It did, quite a bit. All done, hope it works for you. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For Lightmouse's benefit I will point out that in no way is "which he kept as a souvenir for the rest of his life" tautological, and removal of the phrase "as a souvenir" loses some information, namely why he kept it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Malleus, I think the removal of "as a souvenir" loses something and should be put back in. The way it reads now is that he just kept the cup, but he kept it cause it was from when he was a POW. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neutralhome, you're talking about a cup. The only instance of the word 'souvenir' was for a belt buckle. It isn't a big deal for me so I'll leave it to you guys to do whatever you think is best. Thanks for doing the other edits. Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Mkativerata[edit]

  • I'm not a fan of the way the article states Buckles' recollections of his own activities as fact, especially when those recollections are quite self-serving and paint the subject of the article as quite the generous hero. Specific points:
    1. "Buckles was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, who were going hungry, and he helped to feed them" (source)
    2. "After the Armistice in 1918, Buckles escorted prisoners of war back to Germany." Claim doesn't appear in the primary source cited.
    3. "Buckles witnessed antisemitism and its effects firsthand while ashore in Germany, and he warned acquaintances in Germany that their country would be brought down by Adolf Hitler, whom he encountered at a German hotel." Are these sources good enough?
    4. "he received an Army bonus of $800, and gave it to his father who was struggling as a farmer in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl" (source)
    5. "Buckles was allowed to grow a small garden, which he often used to help feed children who were imprisoned there" Is this source good enough? --Mkativerata (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise good questions. What's been said so far is: NPOV requires that we adopt the tone of the authoritative secondary sources, and that tone in this case ranges from laudatory to fluffy. The secondary sources make the judgment call to take Buckles at his word on some minor points. Since I generally stick to prose at FAC, I'll stop there. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yep, just to be clear: in cases 1 and 4, the secondary sources (high quality ones) don't take Buckles at his word, but our article does; in cases 3 and 5 my question is whether the secondary sources are reliable enough; in case 2 there doesn't appear to be any source at all. I should also say these are examples. I haven't gone through every sentence of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the comments, Mkat. Generally speaking, I haven't seen any sources that question whether he was telling the truth about these matters. Buckles himself has said that he wasn't a hero, he had little reason to lie in his dying days, and the stuff he claims seems kind of mild (like what any decent person would do in the circumstances). But getting down to brass tacks....#1, I inserted an additional footnote that provides additional detail about food for French children, and states as fact that it occurred. #2, I removed a footnote here that was getting in the way, and the statement that he escorted prisoners to Germany is footnoted at the end of the following sentence (i.e. at the end of the sentence about the belt buckle). #4, I rephrased to indicate that giving $800 to father was based on later recollection, though the cited source doesn't in any way question that it occurred (this is in our article not to show how saintly Buckles was, but rather to indicate existence and severity and impact of Great Depression). Regarding #3 and #5, you ask whether the sources are good enough; well, they're WP:RS sources, and the claims aren't extraordinary (witnessed antisemitism, warned acquaintances about Hitler, grew a garden while a POW). But, I'll see if I can stick in another footnote or two. We don't want to overcite though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Following up, I've inserted a couple more footnotes, regarding witnessing antisemitism in Nazi Germany, and also feeding children while POW held by the Japanese.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cheers. My issue is that doddery old men have been known to talk up their life's exploits. I think we need to be careful of taking them at their word:
            1. As far as I can see, this source has been added to support the claim. But it says "He remembers getting food for hungry children who came to his military camp."
            2. Done
            3. There are grades of reliability, and for an FA I'm not sure whether these cut it. The tone of one of the articles -- "Buckles' storied life - forged as a Missouri farm boy, Army ambulance driver, international ship's purser and freight expediter, and World War II prison-camp survivor - was harrowing, inspiring, courageous and historic" -- doesn't bode well. But perhaps not surprisingly as it is a war vet magazine, which could be expected to talk up the lives of war vets. It doesn't compare well at all with the balanced and careful obituaries of the major newspapers.
            4. Done
            5. See 3. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for the followup comments. AFAIK, we don't have any sources that say he was doddery. The cited sources says that he remebered feeding the kids, not that he misremembered doing it. But, I've rephrased this Wikipedia article to track the source more closely: "Buckles was particularly saddened by the war's impact on children in France, who were going hungry, and even in old age remembered helping to feed them.[19][20]"Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • "even in old age remembered helping to feed them" has two issues: (1) it implies WP's acceptance of the fact that he did feed them, but none of our sources say so themselves; (2) the "even in" is an unnecessary (and unsupported?) implication of exceptional memory. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • I removed the word "even". Regarding the articles by Olsen and Razes, it seems like you think the Olsen one is less reliable than the Razes one. The advantage of using Razes is that he supplies facts beyond what's in the brief obituaries in major newspapers. Please note that we haven't used laudatory language from Olsen. Would you advise deleting the Olsen reference, and just using that Razes reference? Seems to me that Olsen is not a problem as a second source.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, I'm not really qualified to have a firm view on the Olsen source; it's just a question I'm asking because I'm not sure whether the publication has a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as WP:HQRS requires. Any other comments on this by editors more in the know than me would be great. The Razes reference looked problematic just from its text (if it uses such flowery language, it's a pretty good sign that rigour has not been applied to fact-checking). --Mkativerata (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Just to clarify, Olsen's the one who said "harrowing, inspiring, courageous and historic".Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Thanks - yes, it's that one that I have an issue with; the other one (from the WWII magazine) I'm genuinely unsure (read neutral). --Mkativerata (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Legion Magazine[edit]

This section is for discussing how good of a source American Legion Magazine is. Here's the article that we're using as a reference:

Olsen, Ken (April 1, 2011). "'I never thought I’d be the last one'", The American Legion Magazine (The American Legion).

A quick search on Google News Archives indicates that the publication is at least well-known. See here. They have a high profile. John Kerry did an interview with them in 2004, mentioned in the Washington Post.[37] Here's a brief description:

American Legion Magazine is a general interest publication that concentrates on world events and national news analysis. Readers of the magazine include over 2.5 million members of The American Legion - an association comprised of veterans who served in the armed forces during a period of conflict - and their families, friends and associates. This monthly publication reaches nearly 5 million readers with its standing columns on current events in Washington, DC, veterans affairs and current issues. On-page and insert opportunities are available to advertisers wishing to reach this captive audience.[38]

So far so good. Also see List of magazines by circulation which indicates that it was founded in 1926 and is currently the 27th highest circulation magazine in the United States. The full sentence from this source that has been mentioned as possibly indicating inferiority of the source is as follows (we do not use this sentence in this Wikipedia article):

Buckles' storied life - forged as a Missouri farm boy, Army ambulance driver, international ship's purser and freight expediter, and World War II prison-camp survivor - was harrowing, inspiring, courageous and historic.

I don't see this as a big problem in an obituary, but others may differ. I don't think anyone would question the reliability of the LA Times and the Associated Press, despite lots of articles like this one:

Survival was foremost when the Stolpas were rescued from a frozen wasteland. Now the burden is how to handle windfall coming their way from selling the rights to their harrowing story….His 50-mile trek, and his wife's courageous efforts to keep their son alive, have turned into a modern-day legend that catapulted them into instant celebrity and wealth.[39]

Anyway, this Wikipedia article does not rely on any superlative language in the American Legion Magazine.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an in-house magazine produced by American Legion for its members, so can't be assumed to have the kind of editorial standards you'd expect from an independent magazine or newspaper, particularly on issues such as this. The fact that John Kerry was interviewed by them during the US election is pretty irrelevant: he was running for president and getting an article in this magazine is obviously a good way to communicate with military veterans (something hinted at in the Washington Post article). In short, I don't think it's a very suitable source for an FA though I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's unreliable. The fact that many of the articles from reliable sources look a lot like the article in question here highlights, in my view, the limitations of these sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that general-interest publications have higher standards than special-interest publications is entirely new to me. Would anyone be questioning this source if it were a magazine for doctors instead of veterans? Clearly, this is a secondary source rather than a primary source. Per WP:OR, "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." As for Kerry, I merely mentioned him because it indicates he trusted the publication to accurately report what he said, but feel free to disregard that Kerry example. This is the 27th most widely read magazine in the United States, and I don't see why its news reporting is any less reliable than the reporting in a magazine for bikers, or for engineers, et cetera. Perhaps a book by David McCulloch about Buckles might be more reliable, but plenty of featured articles use sources like this magazine.
The author of this magazine article is Ken Olsen, a former reporter for newspapers in Moscow and Spokane, who wrote Lasting Valor, the 1997 biography (published by Bantam Books) of Medal of Honor recipient Vernon Baker of Idaho, who died in 2010. Lasting Valor was the basis of the 2006 NBC documentary by the same name. Olsen, who now lives in Oregon, is a frequent contributor to The American Legion Magazine. He may not be David McCulloch, but he's more than qualified to be a source for a featured Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RHM22[edit]

Support, but I agree that the highly positive tone should be toned down. I understand that there are probably not any negative sources (there is no reason for there to be any), but I think it prudent to possibly remove some of his good deeds or reword them at the least. I copyedited the article, but I think it is well written. I have no comment on the sources, as prose is the only thing I really pay attention to on these.-RHM22 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I rephrased the sentence about hungry French children to make it sound more neutral, and will see if that can be done anywhere else in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Along the same lines, I've just changed "veteran adventurer" to "participant in two world wars", and made a similar small change so that prison-camp calisthenics is described with a more neutral tone.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking a lot better.-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko[edit]

Support, been meaning to stop by for some time now. I think this article looks very good and I'm glad someone took this project on. P.S. I am going to add this to Portal:United States in the next few minutes and I added a mention of it in the WikiProject United States Newsletter. --Kumioko (talk) 01:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I do notice though is that his name seems to be mentioned in excess. I don't personally think we need to say Buckles did or said this or that every sentence. --Kumioko (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed six of them.[40]Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D[edit]

Oppose for now - please see below. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I'm neutral towards this nomination largely as I think that parts of the article it still reads as a bit of a hagiography, though this probably reflects the tone and nature of the available sources more than anything (who wants to write a warts and all book or article on someone like this? - probably rightly, no one). However, the statement that "After the outbreak of the Pacific War and the invasion of the Philippines, he smuggled supplies to U.S. troops on Corregidor." seems questionable, particularly as the date of his capture (January 1942) was also when the Battle of Bataan began, and such "smuggling" became necessary as the Philippino and US forces were cut off. While he was in the right kind of job to have been involved with something like this, it needs a much stronger reference than an article in a small circulation local newspaper (the Canby Herald) and more detail on what this involved would be invaluable. If he really sailed supplies through Japanese patrols (or organised for this?) why don't any other sources mention it and why didn't he receive some kind of official award for this? Note that the source may have confused the chaotic last-minute build up of supplies at Bataan and Corregidor before the Japanese arrived with the efforts to supply the garrison after they were cut off. Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another footnote that mentions the subject. More generally, if you can find negative material to put in this article, that would be fine. We already make clear that he was a failure at getting a war memorial. It's our job to follow reliable sources, and if those sources report positive facts without telling us about negative facts, then it's not our job to compensate by somehow skewing the article against what the reliable sources say. It's true that better sourcing is required for material that is controversial or likely to be challenged, but there is no reason to think that the material about Cooregidor falls into that category. In any event, I've added another footnote that's related, though I think the first footnote is adequate absent any reason to believe it's controversial or likely to be challenged.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my basic concern is that the type of sources currently available may not be sufficient to support an FA-level article - though I note that it seems that I'm in a minority on this. As I said, I'm neutral on this nomination though. That extra reference doesn't mention smuggling supplies to Corregidor - it just says that he once attended a reunion of the American Defenders of Bataan and Corregidor and that he remained in the Phillipines to transport supplies against the wishes of his employer. I think that a claim that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor yet never received any kind of official recognition for this needs a strong citation, especially as the relevant dates don't seem to match up. Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the extra reference is not verbatim the same as the first source, but obviously they are closely related. If Buckles was transporting supplies to US troops while the Japanese were all over the place, then that certainly supports the notion that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor. Moreover, your argument about lack of official recognition strikes me as original research. The US military didn't give awards to civilians, and we carefully explain in this article that the POW medal only goes to members of the military.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"If Buckles was transporting supplies to US troops while the Japanese were all over the place, then that certainly supports the notion that he smuggled supplies to Corregidor" - with all respect, I disagree. Taking part in the effort to move supplies to Corregidor before the Japanese were in control of Manila Bay is an entirely different thing to running a Japanese blockade (the Japanese landed in northern Luzon in early December 1941, but didn't reach the Manila Bay area until late in the month. During late December the US authoritities desperately tried to build up supplies in Bataan and Corregidor so they could fulfill their roles as defensive redoubts - this included shipping large (but not large enough) quantities of supplies from Manila and nearby towns. The US Army's well respected official history is online here and should be useful as background - this passage discusses the belated build up of supplies, which included the efforts of civilian volunteers). If he did actually smuggle supplies through a blockade, it's safe to say that this would have been explicitly mentioned in multiple sources - almost certainly including the tributes from senior government figures - and the article should cover this act of heroism in detail. If he instead took part in the effort to ship supplies to Corregidor while it was relatively safe to do so, this should also be explicitly covered, especially as it seems he had the option to leave (though it's a bit odd that only one relatively small town newspaper seems to have seen fit to include this in its coverage of Buckles...). I'm shifting to oppose until this is sorted out. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I cannot follow your reasoning here. You acknowledge that the Japanese reached Manila Bay late in December of 1941. Buckles was not captured until January of 1942. Thus, he was perfectly available before his capture for sneaking supplies in late December through Manila Bay to Corregidor, just as the two cited sources say. Your only apparent reason for challenging this information is that instead of only two reliable sources we would instead have multiple additional sources quoting tributes from senior government figures. I can't see why. Buckles was not in the military at the time, so his military record does not reflect the smuggling. Have senior government figures offered tributes to the other private smugglers who helped supply Corregidor, including not just ship captains but also lowly crew members? I'm afraid that you're creating a controversy here where there is none. Only one of the two cited sources uses the word "smuggle", so I'd be glad to change that word to "supplied" which is clearly supported by both sources, but really you have no basis for challenging what's in either of these two reliable sources, in my opinion. It's commendable that you've looked at the history of Manila Bay, but evidently that history matches perfectly with what's in the two cited sources. There is no discrepancy at all. The reason why this particular factoid hasn't received more attention is pretty obvious: most attention has been focussed on his WWI service rather than other stuff.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Your only apparent reason for challenging this information is that instead of only two reliable sources we would instead have multiple additional sources quoting tributes from senior government figures." My main concern is that there aren't reliable sources. The claim that he was "smuggling" doesn't appear credible without further supporting information (transporting supplies in a war zone isn't "smuggling", which is an even more dramatic activity), and its source probably isn't reliable. The other source, while probably more reliable, is very vague about what he did and doesn't directly support the claim made in the article (I note this also quotes a friend of him saying "I knew he was on one of those famous death marches in the Philippines, not the Bataan one, but another one" which seems like something which should be covered in the article, if it can be confirmed). If Buckles did have World War II service I would expect this to have been reported widely (thereby providing confirmation for these sources), but this doesn't seem to have been the case. All up, this isn't the kind sourcing and material which is suitable in FAs. I appreciate that an awful lot of work has gone into this article and it's in reasonably good shape, but the sources are letting you down here. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, have you checked out the revised language in the article, which doesn't use the word "smuggle"? Regarding death marches, this Wikipedia article is already clear that he battled starvation and was transferred from one prison camp to another, so I think we already adequately and accurately cover that matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"By then, the participant in two world wars had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society" - why define him here by his brief service in World War I and getting captured in World War II? Given that he seems to have spent all of the 1930s employed on board various ships and continued travelling early 1940s, his wartime experiences seem to have been less important to him not "settling down" than his employment in the shipping industry. Nick-D (talk) 01:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very poor writing for a biography to consist of a huge number of sentences in which the subject of each sentence is invariably "Buckles" or "he". I have modified the sentence you object to, so that it now says: "By then, the former doughboy had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society." I don't see anything wrong with this. His primary notability is as a doughboy. We're just trying to write a biography that has a modicum of style.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this to 'Buckles'. He was only in the Army for about four years, of which only about two years were full time. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained above, I disagree with your "tweak". You ignored the reasons I gave, and also ignored the very recent comment above by Kumioko that it is poor form to overuse the subject's name.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems non-sensical to label him a 'doughboy' in an entirely unrelated context - he wasn't in the Army for long, and at this time virtually all able-bodied men of his age would have spent several years in the military so his military service wasn't particularly notable until the 2000s. It would make more sense to say something like "By then, the former shipping company employee had settled down to a life of farm activities..." as this was what he'd actually spent the bulk of his time doing and was the main reason he hadn't settled in a single location. Nick-D (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will change it to "world traveller". As I said, the theme of this whole article is that he was a former doughboy. I don't understand why you want to downplay that theme, but in any event I cannot anticipate any objection to "world traveller".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. It seems to not do credit to someone to cast their entire biography in the light of unremarkable military service which only became notable because they were the last person living to have served in a particular war - this is the reason for their notability, but the article should have a broader focus. Nick-D (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As some further comments on sources:

  • http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=N-EkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QREGAAAAIBAJ&pg=995,1193580&dq=frank-woodruff-buckles&hl=en (published in the 'Spirit of Jefferson Farmer's Advocate - Feb 1, 2001') is referenced five times, but is actually a collection of clippings from letters written by Buckles, his daughter and a friend.
  • the article "Frank Buckles: Distinguished Patriot" is referenced three times, but was published in the Sons of the American Revolution's magazine. Given that Buckles was a member of this organisation for most of his life, this probably shouldn't be considered an independent source and may not be a RS for our purposes. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. That Spirit of Jefferson footnote is not a good source, and I've removed it. I've also edited the article to fix the SAR stuff. The SAR Magazine is now cited only once (instead of three times). It's now in footnote 57 merely for the proposition that he was a member starting in 1935. That seems like an extremely innocuous footnote to me. The other two citations to that magazine are now gone; in one case I swapped it for another footnote (though it was a valid source for merely quoting Buckles), and in the other case the statement in this article was already fully supported by another footnote (I therefore didn't see much harm in adding the SAR Magazine as a second footnote but perhaps it's cleaner now that it's removed).Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resupplying U.S. troops in Phillipines[edit]

The pertinent section of this Wikipedia article now says:

After the outbreak of the Pacific War and the invasion of the Philippines, he reportedly remained in Manila to help resupply U.S. troops.[1][2]

[1]Hughey, Ray (April 28, 2011). "Honor, Heroism & History". Canby Herald. Eagle Newspapers. Retrieved April 28, 2011. Frank was working in Manila when the Japanese invaded the Philippines in 1941. He spent three years in a Japanese concentration camp after he was captured smuggling supplies to U.S. troops on Corregidor.
[2]Belisles, Richard (February 28, 2011). "As tributes pour in, friends remember Frank Buckles". The Herald-Mail. Schurz Communications. Retrieved May 3, 2011. Amoroso said Buckles told him that Gen. Douglas McArthur, commander of American forces in the Philippines in 1941, asked that crew members of the cargo ships remain because their ships would be needed to resupply his troops. Buckles ignored his captain's pleas to leave with the ship and ended up being captured, Amoroso said.

This seems fine to me. It's been modified in response to comments from Nick-D, and I hope Nick will indicate whether this is satisfactory. These are both reliable sources, from very reputable publishers. The sources are consistent with each other, and either source would support the statement that we make in the text of the Wikipedia article. There are no contrary sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork[edit]

Comment. I think the prose is clear and does convey meaning, which is good enough for GA, though I'm not finding it engaging enough for FA. Actually, some sections wouldn't meet GA criteria - this is not clear: "All of the captives were freed by Allied forces on February 23, 1945. He learned some Japanese during captivity, and was fluent in German, Spanish, Portuguese, and French." At least one non sequitur, and possibly two. The end of the second sentence seems to imply he learned those four languages during captivity - but it's not clear.

There is a lot of material in the main body which is not mentioned in the lead. Though on reading the main body I was struck by the trivial nature of much of the information, and felt that some trimming could take place. The man's claim to notability is his age - a succinct overview of his life would suffice, and providing too much small information starts to work against the man as it starts to trivialise him. For example, this paragraph contains little information of importance, and gives the impression of a man who did little:

After World War II, Buckles moved to San Francisco, married Audrey Mayo in 1946, and went to work for a west coast paint company. In January 1954, the couple bought the 330-acre (1.3 km2) Gap View Farm in West Virginia where they raised cattle. Ancestors named Buckles had settled near Gap View Farm centuries earlier. In 1955, their only child was born, a daughter named Susannah. By then, the world traveller had settled down to a life of farm activities, social events, and volunteering with the local historical society. Audrey Buckles died in 1999, and their daughter moved back to the farm to care for him.

This could be summarised as - "After World War II, Buckles settled down to a farming life in West Virginia with his wife and daughter."

It may well be that in striving to be "comprehensive" there has been a desire to include too much unnecessary and unencyclopedic detail. SilkTork *YES! 09:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the sentence about fluency in various languages was a bit convoluted. It's fixed now.
Regarding the period from 1945 to 2000, some previous commenters requested more context and detail. But you're right that it could be improved; I just now took out the trivial detail about working for a paint company, and inserted the more notable fact that he became president of the county historical society. Some of the article is a story of a typical person, but other parts of his life were extraordinary and provide insight into the times he lived through. It's not just an article about someone who died a very long time after being born.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101[edit]

Oppose

  • 1a: Problems with prose are continually surfacing. Article needs a comprehensive copyedit from uninvolved parties.
  • 1b&c: Dubious claims to Buckles involvement in WWII are dependent on one or two "less than high quality" sources based on some acquaintance of Buckles saying "I knew he was in one of those death marches" and very likely Buckles's own words out of context. More research into these claims could be countered by consulting sources for the Philippines Campaign (1941–42) and Raid at Los Baños. What ships were involved in the "smuggling"?
  • 1b&c cont: More information needed on his WWI service. Find more information on the 1st Fort Riley Casual Detachment. Who was the commanding officer? Dates of participation/deployments? Causalities?
  • 1d: Article presents and has an overall tone that Buckles was somehow a lifetime soldier. Listing him as a participant in WWII and the Raid at Los Baños along with his WWI service is misleading and steering to the reader. There were plenty of civilians involved in WWII like Air Raid Wardens and many many civilian prisoners none of which makes them notable as "participating" in WWII.
  • 1d cont: Almost all of the sources used in this article are the "rah-rah-rah sis-boom-bah. We love Buckles and America" type. Highly praising of everything and managing to make Buckles sound like a messiah because he claimed to have foreseen the downfall of Hitler's Germany even though it was during the 30s and Germany's height of power and feeding French children. Many soldiers fed French children; not just Buckles.
  • There are still MOS issues with overlinking and photos missing alt text. Brad (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to dignify these comments with an extended response, as the Wikipedia piling-on is evidently now in full swing. The penultimate sentence of Brad101's comment is typical: "Many soldiers fed French children; not just Buckles". This Wikipedia article already says he "helped" feed them, which obviously implies that he was not the only one doing so. Building ridiculous straw men is unseemly enough when discussing regular Wikipedia articles, but I find it especially repugnant in the FA process. So, I don't expect to have anything further to say here. This process began with a ridiculous insistence on opposing-and-recusing-and-insisting-the-oppose-is-not-withdrawn-regardless-of-further-article-edits, and now it ends with an outrageous straw man. Some of the comments have been helpful and have produced a better article, but the piling-on is very sad to see. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:29, 3 May 2011 [41].

Necrid[edit]

Nominator(s): Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trying once more for FAC. Little new material has been added since the last FAC, though the article has undergone heavy copyediting for prose and ease of reading, and adjustments to sources have been done as needed.Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Image and deadlink review

  • File:Necrid01.png - source link is broken.
  • Two deadlinks.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the image, I've found an archive on the Internet Wayback Machine here. I'll try to find the specific location and see if it's on the archived version. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The deadlinks are due to MyWire currently being down due to temporary restructuring, however they are only in place to further verify the information in the magazine references they're used in. Fixed source link for the image.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting- I was playing SCIV earlier today, as it happens. I've played a lot of II, but I must say that I wasn't a fan of Necrid. Anyway...

  • "After escaping the dimension—his body drastically mutated, his memories and sanity initially lost—he wields various forms of energy as weapons while searching for fragments of the shattered Soul Edge, which soothe the pain caused by his separation from the dimension's energies." Tense shift.
  • "Some reviewers, such as Insert Credit" Is Insert Credit a reviewer? Or is it a publication? Same for 1UP.com
  • I'm assuming Necrid is the result of the "idea that McFarlane accepted because he considered it an opportunity to create a toy based on the finished design"? Perhaps make it explicit.
  • "Instead of face Inferno, he fled," Rephrase?
  • "His memories and sanity through by the battle, Necrid closed the entrance to the void, trapping himself within." I don't understand what this means
  • "At the start of Soulcalibur IV the character Talim repeats a dialogue she had with Necrid in Soulcalibur II, but in reverse order." Again, sorry, I don't follow.
  • "to form various bladed weapons, able to set the energy aside" Rephrase?
  • "ignis fatuus" Italics?
  • "at varying distance" at varying distances?
  • "GameNOW called" Sorry, this jars on me- it's not the publication that calls it such, but the writer. I appreciate no writer is named, but something like "A staff writer for..." will work
  • "GMR described him" Same again, and perhaps say what GMR is? "American video games magazine GMR" or whatever
  • "they further exclaimed" Odd phrase
  • (In other places, I feel that saying "an article in" or "a writer for" or something would be better than saying "Publication said", but I'll not just repeat myself)
  • "Insert Credit" Again, as there's no link, could you say what this is?
  • "character's gameplay was unbalanced" In what way? You haven't mentioned this elsewhere in the article.
  • Images are fine. I have tagged File:Necrid01.png with {{non-free reduced}}. It's a shame there's only the one image, but kudos for keeping non-free content to a minimum. Have you considered adding File:Todd McFarlane by Gage Skidmore.jpg to the article, just to break it up a little? Something to consider, maybe.

All in all, a very nice article, I was pleasantly surprised. You manage to seamlessly include both information of interest to a Soul fan like myself, and the real-world significance of the character. The article is written well, and seems to comply with our various policies and guidelines. I have not double checked the sourcing, so I can't speak for that, but everything else seems to be close to FA quality. I suspect I'll be happy to support once the issues I have raised have been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Did some heavy work on the article per the above, and removed that bit about Talim in SC4 entirely: there's no evidence of reference to this character in retrospect other than shared lines. Hopefully all the issues have been dealt with?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments':
  • Could probably use another look at copyediting for phrases like:
    1. Necrid can attack using other forms of energy as well,* such as
    1. Namco outlined the then-unnamed character's traits, such as its his in-game role and physical build
  • Design, second paragraph - The first sentance is awkward because it says the appearance is similar save for the skin scolor. It then goes on to list a number of exceptions. If it is as similar as suggested, a whole paragraph shouldn't be needed to describe the differences. Either condense it by eliminating some of the minor changes and focusing on the more major one (ie giving proper weight to the major differences, or don't use a word like "similar".
  • In video games - this implies he's been in multple games when the text notes he's only been in one and not all versions. Thus the header gives a false impression to the reader.
  • "Several of Necrid's attacks are duplicates of those used by other characters in the series." - vague. Are the button commands the same, are the movements onscreen the same, the powers, damage type, etc all or some of the above or something else?陣内Jinnai 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the issues you mentioned, but I don't really see the problem with "In video games" since the plural does still apply in the sense that he appeared in console ports of SC2. "Appearances" or "In Soulcalibur II" would be the only alternates I can think of, but one has even broader implications of the character appearing in other media, and the other feels rather redundant.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if a character appears in a blu-ray and DVD version of a production it should be treated as 2 different releases? Or what about if there was 2 versions of a DVD release, one with a directors cut, should they be considered seperate titled releases? I can't see that and imo ports here are basically the same thing, just replacing the different type of media.陣内Jinnai 23:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I get your point, but you would still put "in film" for a character's appearances in that regard, as it's the only media they have ever appeared in. "In video games" is the closest counterpart to such a header, as anything else is either direct to the point of being redundant or vaguely implies appearances in other media outside of games.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, no my point is that it should be using some term that describes it as a singular, not a plural. If and when the character is released in another game, then it'd be different, but as the article mentions he's not even sceduled as a possibility for the next SC release.陣内Jinnai 15:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In video games: Comma after Talim (first use)?
  • The video game console link is unneeded, since there's one already in an earlier section.
  • Gameplay: "However, each attack causes his weapon extend from then retract into his hands". Missing "to" before "extend".
  • Promotion and reception: This section has several repeated links. You don't need that much blue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be all fixed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still see multiple Xbox and IGN links here, and Xbox was linked in a previous section, meaning there's three links in a close proximity (likely two too many). Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ref 7: pages(s)?
    • The information from that source was from MyWire, which unfortunately is down at the moment and did not give a page number. It is used specifically for citing that Namco provided outlines for Necrid's physical build, a detail not mentioned in the other more-readily available interviews, leaving it unable to be replaced with a better one at this time.
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first, and in how multi-author works are notated
    • Fixed references 39, this is the only one I can see that was the problem?
  • Don't replicate cited sources in External links
    • Fixed.
  • What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • InsertCredit is ran by Brandon Sheffield, video game journalist and editor-in-chief of Kotaku; Tim Rogers is a video game journalist and reviewer cited by sources such as MTV.com[42] and contributor to sites such as Kotaku. He is cited here solely for his opinion on the subject character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to support this, but I am still not convinced that the writing is up to scratch. Some examples-

  • Repetition of "stated" in para 3 of the promotion section
  • Personification of publications- "X-Play stated that", "GameZone stated his"
  • "Website publication"? I appreciate that you're trying to explain what GameZone is, but this doesn't really help. "Gaming website"?
  • "fragments of the sword, he encountered Talim, who was also seeking the fragments," repetition
  • "His memories and sanity restored through by the battle" What does that even mean?
  • Short paras in "design" and "in video games".
  • "XBN staff (August 2003). "Spawn of McFarlane". Xbox Nation." Page numbers? Italicise XBN (or remove the "author" altogether)?

These are just a few examples. Sorry. If it doesn't pass this time, I will try to find some time to help you give it the last little push. J Milburn (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:21, 3 May 2011 [43].

May Revolution[edit]

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a key event in the history of Argentina, and I have worked a lot with it. I worked first with Argentine books, as those made the most comprehensive study of this topic (not surprising), but I checked some books in English as well. I have also trimmed down some parts to related articles, but trying to keep this as an article that could be understood on its own, having in mind that most readers from outside Argentina or even South America are unlikely to have even a clue on who were this people or the events described. Cambalachero (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sourcing at this time

  • "Two antagonistic factions emerged: the hacendados (owners of haciendas) wanted free trade so they could sell their products abroad; and the merchants, who benefited from the high prices of smuggled imports, opposed free trade because prices would come down." - source?
  • "Álzaga was not freed, but his sentence was changed to house arrest." - source? Check for other statements needing sources - there appear to be many of these
  • Per WP:LAYOUT, Bibliography should appear after References
  • Need more specific publisher locations than "United States of America" and "Great Britain"
  • Date for Abad de Santillán?
  • ISBN given for Crow leads to the 4th edition - if this is what was used, should note that. Check for others
  • Check ISBN formatting on Luna 1994
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when
  • References to multiple pages should use "pp."
  • Ref 28: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first in References
  • In general, reference and bibliography formatting needs to be much more consistent

I've only gotten about a third of the way through the bibliography, but this seems to need major improvements to qualify for FA status. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but I don't understand the 11º: all references cite the authors by the last name, and I did not find any use first name by mistake. Perhaps you are confusing a Spanish last name as a first name? Cambalachero (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. - Dank (push to talk)

  • As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. I fixed all the following.
  • "series of revolutionary events": "series of events".
  • "developments in Spain": WP:EGG problem here, that is, you're saying one thing but linking to another.
  • "Delegates decided to deny recognition to the Council of Regency in Spain; to end Cisneros' mandate as Viceroy, since the government that appointed him no longer existed; and to establish a junta to govern in his place.": See WP:Checklist#series. Also, it's better to do without semicolons in a series if you can, and it's better not to discuss states of mind if discussing actions will suffice. So: "Delegates denied recognition to the Council of Regency in Spain and established a junta to govern in place of Cisneros, since the government that appointed him Viceroy no longer existed." Also note that junta was an EGG problem.
  • "considered as one": considered one
  • " declaration of independence": EGG problem.
  • Not yet. The prose is going to need more work than I have time to give it. See if you approve of the changes, and see if you can find a copy editor. If this FAC doesn't work, I hope you'll consider running this through through the A-class review of the military history wikiproject. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done the "state of mind" issue in some cases, those that are gramatically redundant (such as "decided to do X" instead of "did X"). Most other, however, should be kept. In most cases to say what was done is not enough, it's needed to explain as well the why and how of what was done, and in most cases this is done though the opinions and perceptions of the involved actors. If we strip the article of such explanations and write it as a timeline of events, it would become very hard to understand, as many actions would seem contradictory or out of character if not contextualized or explained.
I will check the links tomorrow, but have in mind that linking junta (Peninsular War) when we mention that the idea was to establish a Junta is not at all incorrect, as it is a technical term whose meaning may be misleading. An unaware reader that reads that a government was a "Junta" would immediately think in a military junta, but this is not the case. The Spanish juntas of the peninsular war waged wars but were not military in themselves. In the one that came out of all this, for instance, only 2 of 9 members were military, all the others were civilians. Cambalachero (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's more discussion at our guideline, WP:EGG. - Dank (push to talk) 03:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the links, removing some and rewriting others, so that the links link to articles named that way, or the difference is merely grammatical or for disambiguation (such as "republican" for "republic" or "Ferdinand VII" for "Ferdinand VII of Spain"). However, there is a pair that need clarification, the sentences "There are [[Historiography of the May Revolution#Factual concerns|many interpretations]] of the motives for this action. and "However, there is no unanimous view among historians about the [[Historiography of the May Revolution#Factual concerns|authorship]] of the content of the document.". They are written that way as content forks of info that used to be here. If they are not acceptable I may write specific articles for the one-day Junta or the document with signatures, but I'm not very sure of their independent notability. Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The International causes section is too detailed. The American, French and Industrial Revolutions are all well known by many, and there' no need to elaborate so much. For eg: the names of the Enlightenment figures, the details about the American Revolution and Napoleon can all be trimmed down. Also check for redundancy: both International and National Causes sections talk of the Portugese royal family fleeing to Brazil.—indopug (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have reduced the information to more basic facts, and mentioned the portuguese nobility in only one section. It may be less clear in text that the crowing of Joseph in Spain and the escape of the Portuguese were part of the same conflict, but if that's already common knowledge, we can leave it that way. Cambalachero (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Image captions (i'll try to check more content later)

  • Captions with incomplete sentences shouldn't end with period (see Wikipedia:Captions).
  • Caption for Cornelio_Saavedra_-_1810.jpg is pretty vague and doesn't help understanding the article. Could you rephrase the caption, either with his role in the events or with a clearer summary of his actual position? (i realize, it can be difficult in a short caption) GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I added periods to the full sentences captions (a noun and a verb) and removed them from the noun captions, and reformulated Saavedra's and a pair of others. More than stating that his position "prevailed", I stated that he got the majority of votes, which is more specific and details in a few words Saavedra's importance in the event. As for his role, surely his leadership is implicit from that. Cambalachero (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments after a read-through

  • Lead - First sentence "The May Revolution ... of Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay" is a bit too long and too detailed to be really "inviting" to the article. ==> Suggest rephrase "The May Revolution (Spanish: Revolución de Mayo) was a series of events that took place from May 18 to May 25, 1810, in Buenos Aires, capital of the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, a former Spanish colony in South America." (level of details of later successor states not needed in lead).
  • Is the event commemorated only in Argentina or in other countries as well? Maybe worth a brief mention in "Legacy".
  • "In 1808 the Spanish king...abdicated in favor of Napoleon ... Joseph Bonaparte." ==> Use "Napoleon I" or "Napoleon Bonaparte" at first mention to avoid confusions.
  • "Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal... an open cabildo" ==> Suggest trimming "Viceroy Cisneros tried to conceal the news in order to maintain the political status quo, but a group of criollo lawyers and military officials organized an open cabildo"
  • International causes - Remove "They chose a republican form of government, rather than a monarchy.", it doesn't fit into flow of thoughts (and republican ideals are explained later anyway).
  • "Liberal ideas reached the church" - which church? (large parts of the French clergy were sympathetic to monarchy). Please clarify.
  • "...trade only with their own metropoli." ==> wrong plural (i think) - maybe just homeland?
  • "Until then, Spain had been a staunch ally of France against Britain, but at this point they changed sides, and were allied with Britain against France." ==> use singular throughout for Spain.
  • National causes - "A small party of criollos, composed of Castelli, Beruti, Vieytes, Belgrano, and others, supported this project." What makes the named members notable? Try to always add full names at first mention, if available. Also make sure to introduce major figures with a brief description (title, rank, occupation, role in event - whatever works best).
  • Prelude - "The Royal Audiencia ... and not by the Spanish king himself." ==> reorder facts in chronological order: "The Royal Audiencia of Buenos Aires did not allow his return to Buenos Aires and elected Santiago de Liniers, acclaimed as a popular hero, as an interim Viceroy. This was an unprecedented action, the first time that a Spanish viceroy was deposed by local government institutions, and not by the Spanish king himself. But the appointment was ratified later by King Charles IV of Spain.[26]
  • Liniers government - "The rivalry ...were exiled to El Carmen." ==> What or where is El Carmen? Add a brief descriptive remark. (El Carmen has a disambig page for linking, but probably no further info).
  • cabildo or Cabildo - In section 'Monday May 21', "the Cabildo" is acting and compiling a guest list before the open cabildo is even opened. "cabildo" is apparently used with different meanings, can you add a small note explaining the different usages?
  • Historical perspectives - "For example, Manuel Moreno...to justify himself to his sons." ==> Possible subjective interpretations of intentions need direct reliable sources. Not saying, those statements are not correct, but they could be challenged and should be cited.
  • "The first remarkable historiographical ..." ==> "remarkable" is a bit of a value judgement, can you provide a independent source for it?
  • "By the time of the World Wars, liberal authors attempted to impose an ultimate and unquestionable historical perspective, though Ricardo Levene and the Academia Nacional de la Historia[133] which kept most perspectives of Mitre." ==> ",though Ricardo ...." misses a word or two - no complete sentence.
  • Revolutionary purposes - Second half of first paragraph after "The purpose of ..." needs one or two cites. Same for last sentence of 3rd paragraph and end of last paragraph (even in general paragraphs try to have atleast one citation at the end).
  • Legacy - needs a few more sources, especially in 3rd and 4th paragraph for the provided facts.

After all that nitpicking some positive things :). I really like, how you help the reader through a complex and (for the layman) confusing topic. Maybe sometimes a bit too detailed, but the background information to understand the context is always there. After adding a few sources and some improvements in prose i think this article is on a good way. GermanJoe (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most done, with some exceptions that may need clarification (and others which are fixed as requested, but need clarification as well).
  • First, the lead should clarify from the very begining where did all this took place. I mentioned the countries because I'm not sure if the mere mention of Buenos Aires is self-evident. It is so for me, as well as any mention of events taking place in Montevideo, Santiago, Rio, Asunción, La Paz, Lima or other important South American cities, but it may not be so clear for readers from other places that may be familiar with only the US or European geography (I once met someone who needed the clarification of whenever Montevideo was a city or a man).
  • Second, no, the event is only conmemorated in Buenos Aires. The other countries commemorate events that took place within their own modern frontiers; thus the bicentenial of Bolivia was in 2009, Argentina and Chile (with their own revolution) in 2010, and Paraguay in just 10 days from now. However, I haven't seen a source on the topic "national days across South America" or similar to cite, so I should avoid the topic to avoid the risk of synthesis or original research.
  • As for Napoleon, that was discussed by many users a pair of months ago at Talk:Napoleon, and it was settled in that the mere name "Napoleon" is commonly understood to refer to that Napoleon, without needing clarification (in any case, the text is already explicit in that Joseph Bonaparte is Napoleon's brother, if someone mistakes him for Napoleon for the presence of the "Bonaparte" last name, that someone should pay more attention).
  • I have clarified the "church" issue, it was because the book I checked at that point was not very clear in that detail: it talked about the Spanish church, as an expansion of the ideas of the French Revolution, but without noting that it wasn't talking about the French Revolution itself anymore.
  • The "metropoli" thing was a mistake that I fixed: that's the name in Spanish, and there's a word written that way in English, but the correct translation I sought was metropole.
  • "Cabildo" has three possible meanings. It can be either the institution itself, or the sum of the people that compose it; but that shouldn't need clarifications. It is self-evident for any reader that the Cabildo was an institution, and any institution may be mentioned in those ways. The third one, which I explained at first mention, is the open cabildo process, an extraordinary session.
  • Finally, the use of the word "remarkable" is not gratuitous, it is because the historians cited where the first who where actually uninvolved with the events and attempted to check documentation, organize facts, verify details, etc; in short, use a historian method rather than the "this is what I remember and saw" documents written so far. Cambalachero (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:14, 3 May 2011 [44].

Dreaming of You (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): AJona1992 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because an editor has fixed prose errors that kept the article from being passed as a "GA" and "FA". I have expanded and fixed grammar errors as much as I could do. If there are any more concerns please let me know and I will try my best to fix them. AJona1992 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've fixed the formatting of your nomination - you seem to have edited the material above "please don't edit anything above here". Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me about that. Thanks for fixing it for me :) AJona1992 (talk) 18:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dab/EL Check - There are two dead links and a dab link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I came across that, however, I can't find which citation is it so I know where to replace it. If someone can tag the ones as "deadlink" it would be helpful for me to quickly find the sources (knowing theres more out there) so I can get this situated. AJona1992 (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed - I fixed the first deadlink, the second I deleted it since there are two other sources that were there. AJona1992 (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - you've done some good work on this article, but I still don't feel it meets the FA criteria

  • "Throughout her interviews, Selena stated that the album was going to be released sometime in 1994. Selena was questioned by many of her fans and interviewers about the album's release date; however, following the release of Amor Prohibido, she stated that the album was still being developed." - source?
  • You've got both one-sentence and huge paragraphs - try to find a happy medium
  • WP:MOS edits needed - WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, WP:OVERLINK, etc
  • What is considered a "major" crossover?
  • This article's prose has improved, but it could use further copy-editing for grammar, flow and clarity. Some examples: "During a lunch break in 1994, Selena began crying due to the pressures of the press about her album to Jose Behar", "everyone in the world is saliently asleep", "generates influences of '80s synthpop, electro and fast Rock song"
  • Make sure that the wording is neutral and avoids colloquialisms and informal tone
  • Reference formatting needs to be cleaned up - make sure everything is consistent and includes all the required info. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have fixed the ones you specifically asked. For your last question, are you asking me to delete the ones that aren't in use (e.g. dui, date, author name). Which sentences are you referring to and what do you mean by "medium"? AJona1992 (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article fails at least points 1a, 1c, 2c and 3 of WP:WIAFA. I know you've put in a great deal of work to this article, but it still needs more, particularly on the prose. I know you've been told this before, and you've tried to sort it, but I really think you need help from someone else. A few examples of issues:

  • "Vibe stated that the album was a brief recap of her cumbia flavored, Tex-Mex excellent poignant glimpse of the path the album was taking at the time of its release."
    • Vibe should be in italics.
    • Vibe didn't write the review, Ed Morales did.
    • The sentence is an extremely close paraphrase of the source material (and a copyright violation); it needs either to be substantially rewritten in your own words, or presented as a direct quote.
    • In what I presume is an attempt to avoid copyright violation, you've removed one or two words which makes the sentence awkward and difficult to understand.
  • "Los Angeles Times placed the album number one of their top ten albums of 1995."
    • The Los Angeles Times
    • I can't see in the source where it says the album was "number one of their top ten albums of 1995". It seems to be saying something different.
  • "While Behar thrived for his plans into action, SBK Records prepared Selena with experienced music producers who head-geared the entire project."
    • I'm not sure what "thrived for his plans into action" means, or "head-geared" in this context.
  • "It's lyrics is driven about a women who is being captivated and controlled by her partner."
    • Its has no possessive apostrophe
    • Lyrics is plural
    • "driven about"?
  • At Wikipedia:Manual of Style (music samples), it states that non-free samples should be "10% of the length of the original song up to a maximum of 30 seconds" File:Selena-DreamingOfYou-wiki.ogg is 34 seconds long, File:Selena 06 Missing My Baby Dreaming of You.ogg is 35 seconds long, File:Selena - Only Love.ogg is 31 seconds long
  • The reference currently at #76 says "Patoski page 187". Not only is this stylistically inconsistent (compared to eg. "p. 144" in #18), there is no other mention of a Patoski in the sources, so I have no idea what this source is.

Sorry, but this appears to be far from being GA standard still, let alone FA. --BelovedFreak 10:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why is it closing? I'm still working on fixing the issues that Belovedfreak has written. AJona1992 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have fixed all issues that Belovedfreak was kind to enough to address here. I also added a "Further Reading" section to identify the two books that I had used in the article for other editors to know what "Patoski Page 187" etc., is about. I have reduced the time length that WP:MUSICSAMPLES identifies for length maximum. Like all other updated versions, it may take up to an hour for the samples to play the their new versions. If there is anything else that needs to be addressed please do so here. Thanks, AJona1992 (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:14, 3 May 2011 [45].

National Broadband Network[edit]

Nominator(s): -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe the article meets FA criteria. -- d'oh! [talk] 03:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the rollout just beginning and with the NTU being custom-made by NBN Co photos of the unit is very limited. I know its not a solid reason so there will be no dramas if the image is removed. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the hardware is available to the public? I'm not certain the use of a non-free image is appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I take your point. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "One 2.5Gbps fibre cable". I recommend this be revised to 'One fibre-optic cable with a bandwidth of 2.5 Gbit/s'
  • It says "2.3GHz". It needs a space before the unit name.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- d'oh! [talk] 01:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Keep up the good work. Lightmouse (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the technical content looks solid enough, there are problems with the presentation of this article.

  • The lead is supposed to be a broad summary of the article's content. Here, we have 700 or so words of considerable detail from the outset. Since none of this is cited, I assume that the same detail is given in the article. That's a waste of words. The lead needs to be rewritten in broad summary fashion, observing the guidelines of WP:LEAD. This should reduce the lead length by about half
  • Images: It is odd that, with only two images amid a sea of prose, you have positioned them in a way that breaks anoher MOS guideline, by squeezing the prose between the two. The non-free inage will probably have to go, which will solve that problem. But I strongly recommend that the other image, your own excellent chart, is promoted to the lead. That would give the article a much more attractive first impression,
  • Retrieval dates: I haven't carried out a sources check, but it seems you have not added retrieval dates to your online sources. This is a FAC rquirement.

I have not had time to read the article thoroughly, but the above points will, I believe, need to be addressed before the article can be considered for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead was cut in half, the non-free image was dropped and the chart was promoted. Although I didn't add the retrieval dates because the sources are news articles, reports and investigative reports which all has there own dates, so having a retrieval date is redundant. -- d'oh! [talk] 10:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - while I appreciate your efforts on this article, I don't feel it currently meets the standard required for promotion to FA status. Below are some examples of specific concerns:

  • Given the length of the article, the lead is still on the long-and-detailed side
  • WP:MOS edits needed - "%" should be spelled out in article text, WP:HYPHEN/WP:DASH, etc
  • Article needs copy-editing for grammar, clarity and flow. For example, "two Ka band satellites is due to launch by 2015, although an interim satellite is due to launch in July 2011" - grammatical error, repetition
  • WP:OVERLINK - don't wikilink very common terms like business
  • This article could be more accessible to non-specialists. For examples, what is a "Heads of Agreement"? What is the role of the ACCC?
  • Ref 3: formatting
  • Magazine and newspaper titles should be italicized
  • Multi-page PDFs need page numbers
  • Regarding retrieval dates: online news stories are frequently updated or corrected, so the retrieval date isn't redundant. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the formatting, overlink and some copy-editing. Explaining "Heads of Agreement" and ACCC will go outside the scope of the article, which is why they are linked (or should be linked, ACCC link was lost during the lead cut down). I will take a day to do a copy-edit and fix the cites, but could you go into detail on why ref 3 is not formatted correctly? Also I could have missed it but I do not remember putting in magazine or newspaper titles, so could you point them out? -- d'oh! [talk] 15:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Punctuation on ref 3, titles in references. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I am still missing the the issue as the punctuation is set by the {{Citation}} template. Although e.g The Australian is a newspaper it is also an online website, of which the latter is used as a source. -- d'oh! [talk] 02:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you perhaps using a different template for that ref than for the others? It doesn't match. The website is also a work and should be italicized - it's an online publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed all of your concerns about the article, please let me know if you still have them.[46] -- d'oh! [talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great comments so far and please keep them coming as they are very helpful. -- d'oh! [talk] 04:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. Thanks Lightmouse (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—not well-written. Encouragement to improve this, because then my hope is that you'll go around improving other articles in the telecom/communications field, which are appallingly written. Here are issues just in the lead, indicating that the prose throughout needs to be transformed. Who else in the area is a word-nerd? Do you know how to locate such people?
  1. I've fixed the worst typographical clangers in Open-access network, and added copyedit tag to that and related articles.
  2. So, hyphens, please, and initial caps only where it's a title, not just spelt-out abbreviation (not "Retail Service Providers", for example, or "Point of Interconnect"—these are just bad habits repeated from engineery text ... sorry, I'm not being rude to the nominator—unless these things are pointed out, it's easy to be swayed).
  3. gigagitS per second? Pipe needed?
  4. It's under construction, not just planning, isn't it?
  5. MOSNUM: numerals for two-digit numbers. 12
  6. "Layer two" services ... don't know, but I'd have thought "Layer 2": it's really odd otherwise.
  7. "election-promised NBN"
  8. If it really is in Australian English, why "canceled"?
  9. the owner of ... then remove "being".
  10. Remove comma after "Tasmania".
  11. "with services going live in July 2010, while the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011." -> with live services from July 2010; the trial services on the mainland went live on 19 April 2011.
  12. "The first wireless services are planned to be delivered from mid-2012, while two satellites are due to launch by 2015; however, the RFP for the fibre rollout was cancelled as the prices were "unacceptably high", but another options are being explored." Ref tag for the first claims? Try to avoid "while" as a connector. "to be launched"? However then but? Another options? This is not good.
  13. one of the fathers of the Internet ... reference? Who's doing the recognising? And it's an s, not a z, in AusEng. Could you adjust your Windows Word settings so you get a spellcheck variety tab each time you open a document?
  14. IT ... hardly needs to be cited as an abbreviation, it's so common. Which businesses? Comma after "of the Internet". What survey, when?
  15. "the Labor, Greens and independents support the project while the Coalition oppose it"—remove "the" or insert "parties" in the correct place. "opposeS".
  16. "The Coalition's main objection is the use of government funds, instead arguing for less government intervention to achieve the same benefits." The two clauses don't match grammatically. What is the subject?Tony (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For #4 see the talk page, the rest I have fixed up in the lead and — where I could spot them — in the body. I will go through the body again later day to fix any I missed. — [d'oh] 15:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — [d'oh] 07:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't quite understand why common words such as "infrastructure" and "election promise" should be linked. I had a go at that sentence, which was clumsy, so please check what I did (I don't think I got it right).
  • I see spaced eM dashes — like that — which need to be either unspaced, or spaced eN dashes – like that.
  • Canceled, US spelling, is still there ... And further down, "labeled".
  • Generally it's overlinked now. And there was a comma splice that I fixed.
  • THE owner of the. Didn't I point that out above? And when was their review? A year, please? More explicit timings in the background ... even just a few.
  • "the network aimed to reach 98 per cent of the population with access sold under uniform prices with an allowance for providers to sell access to the market with different technical advantages such as access speeds and quality of service." Isn't it people who aim, not networks? "The aim of the network was to" is idiomatic. Then "with ... with"; that word often has a comma before it, too.
  • "third-parties"—it's not a double adjective, so no hyphen.
  • I've never seen so much nowrap template; it's ok, I suppose, but makes it a thick forest to hack through in edit mode.
  • This is almost indigestible: "A heads of agreement was signed by NBN Co, the Australian Government and Telstra in June 2010 to provide compensation for the gradual decommissioning of the existing copper network; estimated to be worth A$11 billion to Telstra and benefits NBN Co by the transfer of existing customers, eliminating a wholesale competitor and providing access to existing infrastructure." It should be a comma, not a semicolon. But the sentence is too long anyway, so why not allow the semicolon by making the second part a stand-alone sentence? "... network; this was estimated to be ...".

Everywhere I look, more needs doing. Tony (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. note — [d'oh] 11:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [47].

Aldermaston[edit]

Nominator(s): matt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for featured articles, and is modelled on a number of existing FA for places. A lot of feedback has been given on the quality of the article, including two peer reviews and a successful good article nomination. A number of MOS improvements have been made since the GA review, and other general content edits have added to the quality of the article since then. matt (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Driveby comment: I am not convinced that File:Aldermaston Petrol.png meets the NFCC. Yes, it's an important subject worthy of discussion in the article, but the image does not add a great amount. Obviously, I would have no objection to the use of the image if it was demonstrated to be free, but, until then, its use will have to meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, but I think the image may be pre-1923 and so public domain. I'm not sure of that, but I'll do some digging to see if I can pin an exact date on it. matt (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Citations to web sources need access dates
  • Ref 15, 16, etc: page(s)? All citations to multi-page works should generally include page numbers
  • Ref 21, 82, 141: which APC 2007? Check for others
  • What is AONB? Spell out or link potentially unfamiliar acronyms and abbreviations
  • Missing bibliographic info for Aldermaston Parish Council 2005
  • No footnotes to BBC Berkshire 2007a, Berkshire Family History Society, check for others
  • Use a consistent template for Further reading
  • Bartholomew 1887: any further bibliographic info available?
  • Birmingham UK or US? Where is Slough? etc. If you're going to include counties, do it for all UK locations outside of London
  • Why do you include full first names in Further reading but not Sources?
  • What kind of publication is Campbell 1982?
  • Publisher for Caiger-Smith 2009?
  • This link appears to be broken
  • Be more consistent in what is italicized when
  • What makes this a reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Image captions should meet same standards for prose, consistency, MoS, verifiability, etc as article text
  • File:Berks-West.png - what source was used to create this map? Is it based on a pre-existing image?
  • File:Aldermaston_Petrol.png - FUR could stand to be elaborated. What is the date of creation of the video, for example?
  • File:Aldermaston_population_nokey.svg - what data source was used to create this graph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Other than the large clue provided by its name, the body of the article does not explain what AWE does. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. matt (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through the article again, I think relegating AWE to a mention in an "other business" subsection of Economy downplays its role in the local economy far too much. The place name is synonymous with the nuclear facility, just like, say, Sizewell or Heysham. According to the AWE website, it employs 4,500 directly and 2,000 contractors. In a place with a resident population of less than 1,000 that is dominant to say the least. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A look through the top parts showed problems that should definitely have been fixed by now. I suggest a thorough cleansing and renomination.
  1. 927 people? Sure that's not 929 or 923 now? Too exact, per MOSNUM. Nearly a thousand would be better, but when? "as of 2011"?
  2. Very blue at the top: why not unlink "South East England", since "Berkshire" will contain a link to that broader target anyway? The infobox region, country, sovereign state is like a taxonony, or a postal envelope: do we really need so much low-value information, given that the more specific items are linked and there's an inset in the map?
  3. I still object to the miles first, km conversion, in UK articles. The BBC has gone over to km: why this old-fogy resistance to change? Please don't quote at me the prescription for utter mess that pervades road signs etc in the UK at the moment: we don't have to stoop to that. [this is a personal comment, not actionable in terms of the FAC process; and I'm sorry to be rude ... don't take it personally.]
  4. MOSLINK says try not to bunch up links, and link to the most specific item: why not link just the second, more specific item? Who is going to rush to the article on the US Airforce when reading this article? "United States Air Force XIX Tactical Air Command".
  5. "Radiocarbon dating on a number of postholes and pits found in the area show activity from 1690–1390"—remove "found". Does "a number of" add anything to the plural "postholes"?
  6. Possibly The remains of wheat ... (where there's an "of" to the right, put a "the" to the left ... doesn't always work, but usually).
  7. "Before the 1066 Norman conquest of England the land and properties of"—comma after "England"?
  8. Tense: "Before the 1066 Norman conquest of England the land and properties of Aldermaston had formed part of the estates of Harold Godwinson, the Earl of Wessex, who would later become King Harold II of England." I'd be inclined to remove the "had" and make it "who later became".
  9. "remainder of the reign"—ayn ayn. Try "rest of" to remove what Fowler called a "jingle".
  10. World War I: linked twice in the space of three seconds. Why at all? It's rather too broad to be useful, and if a reader doesn't know what it was, they should go to bed and read for a year before emerging.
  11. "Of the 100 men from the village that served in"—were they robots? "who".
  12. Remove one word: "with many lots being purchased by their occupiers"
  13. See MoS on section titles: "Post-war" what?
  14. "village valued the village's" Tony (talk) 05:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony – I'll have a proper look through your suggestions when I've got more time. Which points are you referring to at the top which ought to have been fixed? I'm still working on the image (to find out whether it's PD or not, and whether it can be justified as fair use) and have removed it for the time-being, but I've gone through all of Nikkimaria's points to touch stuff up. Thanks, matt (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a quick zip through your points and done some changes. Cheers, matt (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matt, my points are only examples to support my view that the whole text needs a run-through. Is there someone else in the field who's a word-nerd and can c-e it with the benefit of strategic distance? Tony (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It has a table titled "Historical population of Aldermaston" containing blue text. This makes it look like it contains links. I tried clicking on them to see where they went but then realised they were just aesthetic. I suggest the blue is converted to black.
  • It says "The confluence of the rivers is approximately 0.6 miles (0.97 km) north of the village." and "The Butt Inn, is located approximately 1.25 miles (2.01 km) north-east of the village". As is common on Wikipedia, the term 'approximately' is followed by an apparently precise statistic. This creates an apparent contradiction. In any case, it's excessive precision to say '0.97 km' and '2.01 km' for the distance between a village and a river, or a village and a pub. The apparent precision should be reduced and/or the term 'approximately' removed. It's probably enough precision to quote the distances as 1 km and 2 km.
  • It says "Post-World War II. During the 1940s..." The text relating to the 1940s doesn't belong in that section. The section titles could do with a review. Perhaps the date related theme of 'Middle ages' could be continued and replace 'Victorian era' with '19th century' and replace 'Post-World War II' with '20th century onwards'.
  • I don't know what the term 'Toponymy' means. It's only used once and no explanation is provided. Is a plain English term available?

Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [48].

Dragon Quest[edit]

Nominator(s): 陣内Jinnai 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to get this or DW article as a FA before the May 25th anniversary for TFD. The article has gone through a recent FAC and failed, but did have some support already. There was concern about the use of general references in the article, which I'd like to address here.

Do to its length, I've moved my long-winded speech on general reference use to the article's talk page so it doesn't bloat this nomination.陣内Jinnai 17:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image and deadlink review
Article has two images; both with good and proper fair-use rationale. No deadlinks.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When I began reading the article, I wondered this could possibly be considered an FA, but as I read further I realized all the important information was there; the organization of said information is just really wonky for me. Discussing common elements between games before discussing the history and impact of the series, or even introducing the games themselves, seems really odd to me. I think someone who knows little or nothing about the series would be completely lost if he read the article from top to bottom. I am curious why this structure was chosen. I am leaning towards oppose on those grounds alone, but I do not believe this is a fatal flaw. I would be happy to take a crack at reorganizing the article a bit, but don't want to step on any toes. Indrian (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was changed after a request by David Fuchs during the last FAC. Since video games typically discuss the gaemplay elements and plot first, and DF requested the change, its my opinion that this request better mirrors the general VG article structure.陣内Jinnai 03:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I disagree, but nothing will be served by a couple of editors going back and forth on what is at the end of the day a relatively minor structural change. Consider my concerns satisfied then. Indrian (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - With all the efforts going into the article, it looks good for FA status. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would it be possible to replace the Dragon Quest III image with something that perhaps depicts more content? I think that it may be best to use something with a background or more graphical detail such as the image used in Dragon Warrior or an image from recent games. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not beholden with that image so long as the rationale is the same, but do you have an idea?陣内Jinnai 15:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd imagine that the one used in Dragon Warrior would be better; has more detail, illustrates just as much, and the image itself is an icon of the series. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the fact that this battle image also has a landscape for a background and not a black screen. Other than simply looking better this concept is as far as I know something that every game in the series has used since the 5th game. That means that this picture will also be more reflective of the battle screens that the more recent games has used as well as the remakes of the older games. Personally I would used the other image.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sorry. The prose is below FA quality and the article needs an overhaul. It is difficult not to compare this to Halo 3, which is professionally written and engaging even to readers such as me, who do not play these games. I am reluctant to give examples because the tendency is often to address them alone. But since opposition must be actionable here are a few:

  • From the Notes section: "In every game except Dragon Quest VI the blue slime is encountered in the first overworld area with monsters—in Dragon Quest VII the first overland area has no monster encounters—the players explore." The entry between the emdashes is redundant and should be replaced with "that". "Monster encounters" also sounds wrong.
  • Here the logic is wrong, "The lack of save points and the general difficulty of the battles were included with the intention of adding a sense of tension." Absent concepts such as "save points" (whatever these may be) cannot be included.
  • This is strange, "The first four Dragon Quest titles..in their North American localizations". What does "North American Localizations mean?
  • Here we have "localizations again, " In May 2008 Square Enix announced localizations of the Nintendo DS remakes of Dragon Quest IV".
  • "before they beat the game"? Win the game?
  • "leveling requires grinding"? "levelling"?

I think the article would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes. Graham Colm (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [49].

Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Nominator(s): Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a great president. I have contacted top contributor Carmag4 about this and he has approved of me nominating this. I have put this through a peer review and everything put up has been fixed. The last nomination has no consensus and no opposes. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussion on nomination etc moved to talk. Johnbod (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part one[edit]

Fair enough. Here are some comments:

  • In the first sentence of "Early life" I don't think you need to say "(no middle name)".
    • Fixed, with specification re given name. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "Abraham Lincoln was born..." is the standard formulation, and would work here. You said there had been some trouble over it in the past, but I don't think simply stating his name would be controversial (although I've seen far more innocuous things spin into edit wars here). Coemgenus 23:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When writing of his engagement to Mary Todd, you write that they met in December 1839 and were engaged sometime in late December. Does that mean the same month, or a year later?
  • In the early career section, the sentence "In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln bought a small general store in New Salem, Illinois; he purchased it on credit along with a partner " might read better as "In 1832, at age 23, Lincoln and a partner bought a small general store on credit in New Salem, Illinois. "
  • In the next sentence, the last three words ("of the business") are superfluous.
  • At the end of that paragraph, "eighth out of 13" should have both numbers spelled out, or else neither spelled out, but I think both is better.
  • In the next paragraph, "self-study" sounds like introspection. I think "self-education", or "independent study" would better get the point across.
  • In the final paragraph of that section, "suffrage, or voting rights" might be better as just "suffrage" with a wikilink to explain it.
  • That's all for now, I'll check in later with more. --Coemgenus 17:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review spotchecks not done

  • See here for problematic links
  • "The stage was then set for the campaign for statewide election of the Illinois legislature which would, in turn, select Lincoln or Douglas as its U.S. Senator." - source?
  • "a denigrating editorial by Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune which urged emancipation as a prerequisite to military success" - source?
  • "Some time after Lincoln's presidency, the date was changed to the fourth Thursday in November." - very vague statement
  • "the second most visited public park in the United States" - source?
  • "The Lincoln Shrine in Redlands, California is the only Lincoln museum facility west of the Mississippi River." - source?
    • Fixed. Statement moved to talk page until sourced. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for publishers
  • Page ranges should use "pp." and endashes
  • Missing bibliographic info for Stauffer
  • Footnote 50: formatting
  • FN 74: formatting, pages missing
    • Done. FN removed (duplicate cite) to talk page w/ request for p. #. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 77: formatting
  • In general, footnote and reference formatting needs cleanup for consistency
  • What makes this a reliable source?
    • Done. Moved to talk p. for RS establishment; new cite added. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 136: pages?
    • Done. Moved to talk p. for fix; and also query re pertinence to article. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't include full bibliographic info in Footnotes for sources included in References
    • Done. A couple items moved to talk p. to complete bibliog. info needed. Sourcing remains.Carmarg4 (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 204: formatting, publisher
  • FN 257, 259: publisher?
    • Fixed. Duplicate cite - moved to talk p. for complete biblio. info. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 265: spell out publisher name
  • FN 275: more information needed
    • Done. Entry and its cite moved to talk p. for establishment of RS. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out publisher names
  • All sources cited in Primary References should either be footnotes or moved to General References
  • "Nevins, Allan (1960). The War for the Union: War becomes revolution, 1862–1863" - according to GBooks, this is volume 2 of the series listed here as being published in 2000. Is 1960 the original publication date? If so, should be notated as such, and the later volumes should have edition numbers. Also, this book should be notated as a volume in the series
    • Fixed. Volume number noted. Publ. date verified. Edition Nos. referred to talk p. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting used for General References should match that used for Primary References
  • External links could stand to be culled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. A number selected and moved to talk p. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part one and a half[edit]

A few more comments

  • I made a few tweaks to the "Early national politics section". Revert if you find them inappropriate.
  • That section doesn't explain why Lincoln didn't return to Congress. I seem to recall that he ran again and lost, but I'm not certain. Either way, it bears explanation.
    • Fixed. (Lost commissioner job and return to law practice.) Carmarg4 (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I get that he didn't get the commissioner job, but did he run for reelection in 1848 or just decide not to run again?
        • Fixed again. Per Donald, AL pledged to serve only one term. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Prairie lawyer," I would spell out "10" and "16"
  • Also in that section, the sentence that starts "As a riverboat man..." needs a citation.
  • The last sentence of that section, about the client being a distant relation, seems trivial. I'd delete it.
  • The first paragraph of "Republican politics is kind of rambling. I would start out with "Lincoln returned to politics to oppose the Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854." Then, spend two or three sentences explaining the Act and Douglas's role in it.
  • In the third paragraph, maybe change "decided to run" to "ran".
  • In the next sentence, take out "in Illinois". Senators were elected by state legislatures in all states back then, weren't they?
  • At the end of that paragraph, I don't think anyone hyphenates "Vice-President" any more. Also, check WP:JOBTITLES to see if it should be lower-case. I think that guideline is wrong, but it is the rule here.
    • Fixed. (vice president without a name). Carmarg4 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next paragraph, instead of calling Dred Scott "pro-slavery," why not just let the ruling, which you've aptly summarized, speak for itself? I'd actually call it anti-black rather than pro-slavery, since it restricted the rights of that entire race, not just those who were enslaved.
  • In the sentence about his 1858 nomination, I would take out both parentheticals. The first one is just confusing.
  • That's all for now. More later. --Coemgenus 13:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments. I was concerned by the overuse of short quotations throughout the article. I am quite pleased with the solutions that Carmarg and I were able to come implement, and have since moved my resolved concerns to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. Also, I would like to extend my sincere thanks to those who have so clearly poured their efforts into this most vital of articles. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions should follow same standards for prose and MoS issues as article text
    • Fixed. An editor on the AL talk page preferred the former captions. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the images in the "Assassination" section have multi-level captions?
  • File:Abe-Lincoln-Birthplace-2.jpg - direct source link appears to be broken
    • I have updated the links on the image page. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Young_Lincoln_By_Charles_Keck.JPG - need more info on sculptor, particularly date of death
    • Keck died in 1951 (this is readily ascertainable via a variety of searches); I have updated the image page. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ElectoralCollege1860.svg and File:ElectoralCollege1864.svg - what base map was used to create these works? What data source?
    • The user who created these images appears to be inactive. One of this article's subject experts may be able to locate a data source whose numbers match those in the images. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Abraham_Lincoln_by_George_Peter_Alexander_Healy.jpg - is the White House Historical Association a branch of the federal government, or is it an independent group? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image appears to be incorrectly licensed. The photographer/scanner isn't relevant, since the image appears to satisfy {{PD-Art}} requirements for 2d images. I've corrected the license and provided a link to the association's page on the image. Magic♪piano 17:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad[edit]

Comments

  • Please see WP:LINK in regards to the wikilinking in the article. It's not in horrible condition but is a bit heavy on geographical linking. The less linking the better, especially for common terms. Brad (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Took out over 20, mostly geographic and duplicates. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CSS Virginia and USS Monitor clash was during the Battle of Hampton Roads. Suggest clarifying that in the General McClellan section. Brad (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm catching some redundancy in a few areas. You cover the Emancipation Proclamation in its own section but later on in the Reconstruction section you're covering it again. Also, in the General Grant section you mention Lee's surrender but cover it again in the Reconstruction section.Brad (talk) 02:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed EP redundancy - edits clarify the proclamation exempted some states, then Lincoln sought to broaden abolition as part of Reconstruction – advise if further adjustment is needed.
    • Fixed surrender. Looks much better I think. Please advise if further adjustment needed. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have methodically gone through the references and brought standardization to them. They were good but the layout was a bit chaotic. Also cleaned more overlinking.
  • I have left some maintenance tags with hidden notes in the assassination section and the Religious and philosophical beliefs section.
  • The Religious and philosophical beliefs section is quite large compared to other sections in the article. Is too much weight being given to the subject here when there is a separate article? Brad (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Reviewed and edited modestly to make it more succinct. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has been expanded since I last worked on it. I recall this to be, quite expectedly, a very sensitive area to edit. I agree; it's longer than needed. I suggest some consensus from reviewers on abridging this and then post a notice on the talk page before abridging it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are four photos missing alt text, four references that are dead links and two links that need disambiguation. Brad (talk) 01:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed four dead links. (ref. #41 isn't dead; two others removed and one replaced. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coemgenus part two[edit]

More comments:

  • Under "Lincoln-Douglas debates" the sentence starting "Lincoln had found clarity..." seems out of place and superfluous.
  • In the 1860 section, "Tapping on..." sounds odd. Maybe "Drawing on..."?
    • Fixed. Used "exploiting" - legend was overdone. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph there's a squinting modifier. I'd suggest "Most Republicans agreed with Lincoln that the North was the aggrieved party, as the Slave Power tightened its grasp on the national government with the Dred Scott decision and the presidency of James Buchanan."
  • That's all for now, got to go to work. More later. --Coemgenus 11:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still more comments:

  • In the last paragraph of "1860 election" the sentence with the phrase "the Confederacy was an established area," is awkward, especially that clause.
    • Fixed, and other adjustments to improve chronology. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "War begins," I'd link David Herbert Donald and mention that he's an historian.
  • In the last paragraph of that section, "angry secessionist mobs" could probably lose the "angry". Mobs are usually not happy.
    • Fixed.
  • Also in that paragraph, Merryman asked Taney for a writ of habeus corpus, but it doesn't say whether he issued it.
  • In "Assuming command...", the first sentence is awkward. I'd suggest "Lincoln was faced with an unprecedented crisis, and he responded using unprecedented powers that no President had previously wielded." Doesn't have to be that exact language, but something on those lines would work better, I think.
  • The clause about mourning Willie seems out of place in the second paragraph.
    • Fixed. Deleted - mentioned earlier. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lincoln's efforts to rein him in were futile, and he was given another command in November. This decision, in part, prevented the secession of Kentucky while incurring the violence in the North." I'm not sure what's going on here. Fremont's radicalism kept Kentucky in the Union? I don't have Donald's biography at hand, so I can't check it out for myself (I read it, but years ago) but if that's what he says, I guess it's OK. It's just a bit unclear from the sentences.
  • The fourth and fifth paragraphs could be combined -- they're both short and both on foreign policy.
  • In the sixth paragraph, I just hate the word "numerous" where "many" could do the job. If you think that's crazy or out of line, leave it be, but I think simpler words sound better. Again, just a suggestion.
  • In the same paragraph, hyphenate "well defended".
  • In the last sentence of that paragraph, you might mention that the idea of controlling the Mississippi came from Winfield Scott and that Lincoln benefitted from Scott's advice early in the war. Then again, if you want to save space, feel free to leave it out.
  • That's it, more later. Despite these comments, I'm enjoying the article so far. --Coemgenus 14:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet more comments:

  • The first paragraph under McClellan kind of runs all over the place. I came up with a new one, here. Do you think it works better? If so, tweak it to your liking and add it.
    • Done. Looks more like what I recall writing, before it got "transformed". Carmarg4 (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the fourth paragraph of that section, the desertion rate needs a citation.
  • The last two paragraphs in that section could probably be combined.
    • Done. Sentence also edited to reduce wordiness. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Gettysburg address", you need a cite for the fact that the speech is "one of the most quoted speeches in history".
  • In the General Grant section, I think Holmes's rank should be capitalized. On the other hand, I don't think "Whites" should be capitalized in the last paragraph, but that may be a matter of taste rather than grammar.
  • More later. --Coemgenus 22:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more:

  • Under 1864 re-election, there should be a cite for his defeating efforts to deny his renomination.
  • In the third paragraph, maybe "new replacements" should be "more soldiers" or "more troops" or something.
  • Same paragraph: has Farragut been linked before?
  • The first sentence of "Reconstruction" is odd. Maybe "Reconstruction of the conquered South began during the war, as Lincoln and his associates anticipated questions of how to reintegrate the seceeded states and how to determine the fates of Confederate leaders and the freed slaves."?
  • In the second paragraph of that section, I think "reforming from" should be "re-forming after". Then again, the whole sentence could stand to be rewritten.
  • In the last paragraph, first sentence, I think "had quickly initiated a lobbying effort" can be changed to "encouraged Congress". --Coemgenus 17:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other FA presidential articles, the "Supreme Court appointments" and "States admitted" sections are prose, not just lists. --Coemgenus 17:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have prepared a prose draft of the SC appointments on my talk page; but I am not skilled to make the design changes required to replace the list now in the AL article. Carmarg4 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have a look at it when I get to my home computer (I'm writing this on a phone, which isn't good for large-scale editing). --Coemgenus 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have also drafted a short paragraph on the state admissions, and also a piece of analysis, which a reviewer felt was lacking in the article. (NOT my area of expertise.) I would appreciate your reaction to all of these. Carmarg4 (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed Supreme Court appointments conversion to prose. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed states admitted to the union - conversion to prose. Carmarg4 (talk) 23:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anythingyouwant[edit]

Comment - Thought I'd wander over here from the Frank Buckles FAR. I've been stuck on my iPhone the past few days, and this thing is too small for such a huge subject as Abe Lincoln. So, I'll just make a few tentative comments for now. Possibly the most stirring line ever uttered by any incumbent US President was the one about the "better angels of our nature". You quote it, but why not a blockquote? Incidentally, I think he signed off on Yosemite, the world's first national park? Maybe worth mentioning, maybe not. Same goes for these factoids: patented inventor, born same day as Charles Darwin, had symptoms consistent with Marfan's Syndrome, like Washington has no living descendants, Teddy Roosevelt watched his casket go through NYC. Anyway, please consider doing the angels blockquote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations with respect to blockquote – the use of block quotes has not been urged up to this point; if we do one quote, we'll undoubtedly have to do many others. We are already up there in article size. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patented inventor is included. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can add link to his birthday. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marfan's syndrome - Donald indicates the evidence was not sufficient to conclude AL had it. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies. See Yosemite_National_Park#Yosemite_Grant and sources cited therein. There is continuing speculation about whether Lincoln suffered from various disorders, and plans are afoot to find out for sure. See Newsweek. Regarding blockquotes, another option might be a quote box. If there is consensus about the one or two greatest sentences he ever uttered, then there would be no obligation to treat other quotes equally, IMO. By the way, here's a reliable source giving Lincoln and Darwin joint credit for ushering in the modern world. No pressure to include any of this, they're just ideas for you.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yosemite Park added with cite. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on a nice big desktop computer for a little while, so will try to give this article a quick read.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Okay, I know you have been waiting in suspense for my comments.  :-) I'll start now with the lead....

  • I would delete "greatest constitutional, military, and moral crisis". This is highly debatable, considering the founding era, and defeating the axis powers (and some might even say that the country is presently in its greatest moral crisis). I suggest below adding some stuff to the lead, but this is definitely something that can be removed without any problem. So: "He successfully led the country through the American Civil War, preserving the Union while ending slavery and promoting economic modernization." Certainly, promoting economic modernization in the 1860s was not some huge crisis that dwarfed the Great Depression.
  • You say "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including Ulysses S. Grant." I'd expand this slightly to say what's so special about Grant: "Lincoln closely supervised the war effort, especially the selection of top generals, including his most successful general, Ulysses S. Grant."
    • We need to be careful here - potential conflicting POV's over who was the "most successful" general. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. And yet something should be said to briefly distinguish Grant from all the others. Following are some quotes from Google Books:
(1) "Grant was Lincoln's military alter ego"
(2) "Grant was Lincoln's favorite general"
(3) "Grant was Lincoln's friend and Lincoln's heir"
(4) "Grant was Lincoln's favourite general"
(5) "US Grant was Lincoln's greatest general"
(6) "Grant was Lincoln's only general who consistently won victories"
Would one of those work?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find a descriptive term from AL; that should do it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Used the facts. Carmarg4 (talk) 02:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can sometimes be useful in a pinch.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say, "He defused a confrontation with Britain in the Trent affair late in 1861." I'd rephrase to give the readers a clue why they should care: "He defused the Trent affair in 1861, which had threatened to bring British recognition of the Confederacy."
  • You say, "Just six days after the decisive surrender of the commanding general of the Confederate army, Lincoln was shot and killed...." I'd explicitly mention Lee (you mention Grant twice in the lead): "Just six days after the decisive surrender of Confederate commander Robert E. Lee, Lincoln was shot and killed...."
  • You say, "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest U.S. presidents." Please modify to something like this: "Lincoln has consistently been ranked by scholars as one of the greatest, if not the single greatest, of U.S. presidents." See Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States.

Cheers, maybe more comments later about the rest of the article, if time allows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There, now, that wasn't so painful, was it?  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I appreciate the changes to the lead. The Yosemite edit was nice too, but feel free to remove it if you think best. I think it's okay, but there are counterarguments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:I would like to flag something else in the lead. Lincoln's use of "patronage" when he was president is mentioned not once but twice in the lead, which may be excessive, especially because "patronage" doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, except in reference to him seeking a position in the 1830s (as head of the General Land Office which later helped establish protection for a certain forested area in California). I decided to be bold, and have edited the article like this to solve the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Carmarg4 (talk) 11:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*(Undent) I'd like to continue making a few comments now and then as I'm able. Consider this material in the article:

The family belonged to a Separate Baptists church, which had high moral standards and opposed alcohol, dancing, and slavery,[10] though Thomas, as an adult, never joined a church. Thomas "enjoyed considerable status" in Kentucky, where he sat on juries, appraised estates, served on country patrols, and guarded prisoners. By the time his son Abraham was born, Thomas owned two 600-acre (240 ha) farms, several town lots, livestock, and horses. He was among the richest men in the area.

This is confusing, because if Thomas didn't join a church, then you can't say the family belonged to a church; better to say that the churchgoing members of the family belonged to such-and-such church? And why quote "enjoyed considerable status"? That's not quoteworthy, and no source is discussed, so why not rephrase without quotes: Thomas had considerable social status (or something like that)? And at the end it says Thomas was the richest man in the area. What area?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"His family and neighbors considered him to be lazy.[21][22] Lincoln avoided hunting and fishing out of an aversion to killing animals.". His entire family, including his step-mother? Vegetarian?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"house girl" seems like an odd term.

*Tad's cause of death? The causes for two other brothers are given.

*Robert committed his mother to a mental hospital, but she got out, right? Maybe you could briefly indicate that it wasn't for the rest of her life.

    • I think she had to go back in. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • She was in from 1875-1876, and then she got out, and was free until 1882.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did she go back in then? (Donald doesn't cover this.) Carmarg4 (talk) 11:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • She was only in for four months, then she was out for her remaing six years.[50]

*"Lincoln's connections in Lexington could have accelerated his ambitions, but he remained in Illinois.". The word "accelerated" seems amiss here. Maybe "helped satisfy"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In 1834, he won election to the state legislature after a bipartisan campaign, though he ran as a Whig.". This is very confusing. In what sense was it bipartisan? If he was a Whig, did he reject some Whig positions in favor of the other party's positions?
  • Caption says "filmed Lincoln in 1860". How about "photographed"? No movies back then.
  • "derived no rights from the Declaration of Independence or Constitution." I'd cross out Devlaration of Ibdependence here, because it never was a source of legal rights, and as to natural rights the Declaration simply recognized existing inalienable rights rather than conferring any rights.
  • "though strong in his disagreement with the Court's opinion, was as a lawyer unequivocal in his deference to the Court's authority." This is incorrect. In his first Inaugural Address, for example, Lincoln explained that the "eminent tribunal" could not control an entire political issue. And on June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories, overturning Dred Scott. Lincoln signed it. (Please keep in mind Lincoln's reaction to Taney's order regarding habeas corpus.)
    • Fixed. I had misread a statement AL made just prior in 1856. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Mark 3:25)". Would a footnote be better here than a parenthetical? Or maybe, "then delivered his famous speech, beginning with a quote from the Book of Mark".Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like it as is but will change it if you can't live with it. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends. The parenthetical is within quote marks. Did he say it parenthetically, or is the parenthetical ours? If he didn't say it, then it may be a problem, but there may be easy solutions, not limited to the ones I suggested. The way it is now makes it seem like he said it parenthetically, which I doubt he did. Maybe brackets instead of parentheses? It's totally up to you whether to leave it as-is. I already stated my support anyway for making this a featured article. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. I thought differently after reading your reply. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hatnote includes this: ""Abe Lincoln" redirects here. For the musician, see Abe Lincoln (musician).". I'd delete all of that, so that the hatnote simply refers to the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page. We don't normally use hatnotes to list everything that redirects there, so why do it here? And Abe Lincoln (musician) is listed at the Abraham Lincoln disambiguation page anyway. I just think the hatnote is now too big and therefore off-putting.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went ahead and changed this. Feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • See Coemgenus' last comment above re using prose instead of a list for S.Ct. appts. & states. Can you help with changing the layout? It's above my skill level.
        • Can't right now, but will add it to my list. Aren't you drafting something at your talk page?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I have, and I would very much appreciate your comment on that and an analysis piece which was requested by a reviewer. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Revealing. Can we move this down under Wehwalt's suggestion ? We'll need to fix this it appears. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt[edit]

Comment The amount of evaluation of Lincoln, surely something required for a man who is, at worst, our second-most prominent president, is surprisingly small. While there is some mention in the lede of scholars ranking of Lincoln, there really isn't much analysis, and what there is seems a bit hagiographic. Lincoln remains controversial for such matters as the suspension of habeas corpus. I think you've got to have some sort of evaluation of Lincoln, which at least mentions historical controversies regarding Lincoln. I can surely understand this is a path you may be reluctant to go down, but I hesitate to call the article comprehensive at the present time. Also, are you certain on your capitalization of Administration? Those being said, I have not studied the article in depth but it is an excellent effort and a great improvement on what used to be there. I haven't decided whether to formally review the article, but I surely hope such an important article is promoted. You will forgive us all if we cut you no breaks. I surely will not support unless I am convinced of the article's worthiness given the importance of the subject matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These observations are quite valid. I myself have indeed made it a priority to stick with the facts – AL is a powerful draw for POV's and the article does push the limit on size. We certainly are remiss if we don't at least mention a controversy and provide references for further research. That said, for an encyclopedic work, what better compliment than a reader begging for more, assuming you give them a map. I welcome your help to improve the article. Where is the "Administration" you referenced? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Habeas corpus suspension is a very complex, touchy, legal matter and it may be best to merely say here that Lincoln suspended the writ even though Taney told him not to. The clause in the Constitution says: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it." It doesn't explicitly say that only Congress can suspend the writ in those circumstances. But, the clause is in Article One, which perhaps suggests that only Congress can suspend the writ, or that preferably Congress rather than the President would do so, or that perhaps there is a higher standard of proof when the president does so. And then there is the issue of whether Congress approved of what Lincoln did, by passive acquiescence, or by affirmatively recognizing existence of rebellion. And you also have to consider whether Congress and the President can ever team up to suspend the writ, if the courts are open for business. These are very thorny issues.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have provided a link to the article on habeas corpus in the "War begins" section for readers wanting to delve further. The question is whether we should discuss the issue further in the AL article. I recommend against it – to do so potentially makes the article overwhelming to the average reader. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I lean against further covering it in this article, because it's such a thorny, complex, touchy issue. But, if it is covered further in this article, I would hope that the basic points I mentioned would be included. Many scholars often say that Lincoln had no problem violating or overstretching the Constitution in this case, and they argue that therefore violating or overstretching the Constitution is fine. But there is an equally good argument (alluded to in my previous comment) that what Lincoln did was constitutional.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, were there world enough and time, I would love to help out. But I have enough trouble finding time for my own projects, unless I want a 5 a.m. editing session every night and to surrender the few remaining hours of sleep. This article recounts well the events of Lincoln's life. But is it truly complete without what I have stated above? Don't focus exclusively on the habeas corpus issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is some dirt on Lincoln. He had some racist views. Yes, he wanted to end slavery, but he also said a lot of stuff about white superiority, right? Was that for show? I don't know. If so, then maybe he wasn't as honest as everyone says. The other dirt is that he was a rich lawyer for the railroads, not some poor defender of the innocent humble individual, and the latter image was a lie. I don't know how true that is either. But that's the primary dirt, as far as I know.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for dirt, although certainly some of the things he said during the debates with Douglas don't make for swell reading, especially the debates in Southern Illinois. I'm looking for at least some evaluation. I will say that writing such sections is not fun and I personally dislike doing so. Still ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Administration" is third to last paragraph of the General McClellan subsection.
  • I'm a bit concerned about the images and captions, but this shouldn't be much trouble. The image showing Lincoln dead and in the arms of Washington is dated 1860 in the caption and January 1865 on the image page, obvious problem.
  • Why is "Airmail Postage" capitalized and what does it mean? (I don't need an actual answer, I am drawing your attention to a problem hint hint).
The stamps mentioned in the article surprise me, as they are not particularly important, you might do better to look at the four-stamp series of the sesquientennial in 1959, or state that he was depicted on a stamp for the first time in ... (I think it's 1866) and some interesting fact to follow. Also, I surely would think it would be worth mentioning that Lincoln was the first person to be honored with a regular-issue US coin.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, three stamps is excessive. They have far more to do with postal history than with Lincoln's biography. I'd take out at least two of them, if not all three. --Coemgenus 19:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to leave one, leave the 1866.

I do not have the time to do a formal review, I'm sorry, you're getting stream of consciousness. I'll try to keep giving you more if you find it helpful, though I may switch to the article talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we'll get some input from a philatelist or two on these "sticky" issues. Carmarg4 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I think I would not quibble too much about Mystic were it not for the fact that on the source page, there is a clear and obvious error, 13c is stated instead of 15c. That makes me wonder how much editorial review these things get.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In defense of the Mystic Co., maybe it was a .13c stamp; need I remind you of the Inverted Jenny? Sorry, I been at this FAN too long. Carmarg4 (talk) 01:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to feel licked here.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to mention the fact that Booth is in the second inaugural picture.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the redefining Republicanism section contains an excellent start for discussing Lincoln's legacy (which is nothing to do with statues). Perhaps it could be mentioned that before the ACW, "United States" was a plural noun, afterwards a single noun.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had intended to mention this and the beliefs sections as analytical in nature. I'm like you - not at home editing in that arena. Please explain the single/plural noun reference; and do we need a source? Carmarg4 (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this is a RS, but it is certainly interesting!--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Added change of United States from plural to singular plus cites to RS. Carmarg4 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The United States did not suddenly become a singular term as a result of the Civil War. For example, the 13th Amendment (banning slavery) uses the plural form, and the singular form was sometimes used before the Civil War. The singular form really became prevalent in the 20th century. Here is an article about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest deleting the word "final" in "final surrender" in the lede. Lee surrendered only his army. He could not surrender other remaining Confederate forces, and even though his was the main force, bits and pieces of conflict continued I think as late as June.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably redundant, but I won't make an issue of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was following your suggestion - that there were later informal surrenders by smaller units. Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd delete "formal". It is a bit redundant anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The stamps are still in the article and the coin is not. On another note, at present, the article seems to end rather weakly.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see them now - just the one. They are like flypaper. You have any detail on the first coin so I can find it. For me the article has been a daily. (I will make a note.) Carmarg4 (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 7 in Lincoln cent should do you. I wrote it, so I stand behind the accuracy and it is a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed ending. At least a tad, with very recent sesquicentennial proclamation by Pres.; also the proclamation serves as a good ref. for the change in the country's name. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coinage added. Your two cents (minus one) have been added, in hopes of your stamp of approval! Carmarg4 (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. I'll keep reading. But you can't leave it uncited like that. You'll get opposes "just because".--Wehwalt (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the cite needed? I apologize - I have a bad head cold and may not be focusing too well. Carmarg4 (talk) 17:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Last sentence of the article?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. (Lincoln mentioned by title in Obama's proclamation) Carmarg4 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Again, on the comment about the article lacking analysis: I drafted a small piece to add to the article, in an attempt to address this concern. After doing so and sleeping on it, I must say, as I originally did, that I am still most uncomfortable with adding more analytical content to the article. The article does include some analysis - in the Redefining republicanism section and in the Religious and philosophical beliefs section. The article is supposed to be encyclopedic in approach. The better method I believe is to direct the reader to the multitude of analytical sources for further reading, which I think has been done. There is also the concern over the size of the article (we are even now discussing additional factual detail in the nominations/appointments area.) As the reviewer has said, there is an inestimable amount of analysis out there and if we start down that road, many voices will want, and then will have the right, to be represented. The matter will then quickly morph into a POV issue. Perhaps there will be additional comments on this - none at this juncture. I will keep the small attempt at a draft of analysis on my talk page if wanted. Carmarg4 (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

MOS review (not a prose review) per standard MOS disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries.

  • I got the WP:LQ problems down to Abraham Lincoln#Early national politics. Review WP:LQ, please, and fix the rest. - Dank (push to talk) 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed. Carmarg4 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not all of them. These are easy to find; just search for a period or comma before quote marks, for instance, "Mother." - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all done ("The Rail Candidate.") For very short phrases, even if there does happen to be a period or comma at the end of the quoted phrase, it doesn't have any real meaning there, so we move it outside; WP:LQ mentions moving the final punctuation outside when it has no real importance. And of course, it's likely the period wasn't in the original, or certainly not consistently. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Guy546, "..." needs a space on either side, with just a few exceptions; see WP:ELLIPSES. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are for Guy546, since he's the nom and hasn't done much yet, before or after nomming: "Harrison's Landing Letter": I can't think of a reason for italics for this.
    • Fixed. Think this was supposed to have quotes around it. Guy546(Talk) 14:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ranks, including "commander in chief", are lowercased unless they're directly in front of a name.
  • "September 22, 1862": needs a comma following. See WP:Checklist#second commas and WT:Checklist. I got the second commas up to this point; I haven't checked from this point on yet.
  • "this, despite the New York City draft riots": sentence fragment following a semicolon. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more examples that need either no commas or two: "Washington, D.C.", "Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.". Another two that need a second comma: "June 15, 1864", "January 13, 1865". These are just examples. - Dank (push to talk) 15:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is needed in hyphenation of "cooperate" and "reelect...". Webster's New World says both "co-operate" and "cooperate" are okay. It lists only "reelection", but it's generally "re-election" outside the US, and I'm happy either way, as long as you're consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only see "re-elect" and "co-operate" in the article. If there is an inconsistency with it I would be glad you pointed that out to me. Thanks. Guy546(Talk) 14:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Search for "coop" and "reelect"; two instances are in the lead. Generally, we want to be consistent on all forms of the words. - Dank (push to talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "congress": Uppercase, and "the Congress" isn't wrong, but "Congress" is more common.
  • There's an {{inflation}} figure with no citation showing where the figure came from; see the note at the top of Template:inflation. I link to a couple of relevant discussions at User:Dank/MIL#inflation, but I don't understand those arguments myself. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Garrett's farm": Who?
    • Removed and made less specific. Guy546(Talk) 14:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initially assessed Lincoln's wound as mortal": "initially" usually implies that something different happened later; did he change his assessment?
  • "escorted in the rain to the White House by bare headed Union officers": I doubt they were naked. "bareheaded".
  • "President Lincoln, singled out by title in Obama's statement, should figure prominently in nationwide observances called for by the current president.": see WP:CRYSTALBALL.
  • Meh. These are my edits. I'll leave the MOS review there. IMO, the article needs a prose review, but I don't have time to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another thing: looking over Rjensen's and JimWae's edits to the article (around 400 each) and their user pages and user talk pages, I'm wondering why they weren't contacted to see if the current version of the article meets their approval. They may want to participate in the review, and they may want to co-nom; they obviously care about the article, and they're active Wikipedians and historians. (Peregrine Fisher was contacted some time ago about this article and wasn't interested in working on it at that time.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet. I noted what's left to be done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before bringing this back to FAC, please consult all significant contributors and procure a spotcheck for sourcing and paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [51].

Airbus A330[edit]

Nominator(s): Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article has experienced rapid expansion from late-January to mid-March, during which I added large additions of text and improved the article in general; when I said "I", I meant other Wikipedians offered myself assistance, namely users Fnlayson, Bzuk, Brianboulton and WhisperToMe (please forgive if you're not mentioned). As such, I nominated the article for FA status, during which it thoroughly and contructively criticised; I'd also like to thanks to the good guys at GOCE (TransientVoyager and Grapple X), who greatly contributed their effort. In the end, the nomination failed.
During the last two weeks, the article has remained stable. Today I'd decided to re-nominate the article at FAC. I hope many people will partake in this process, and, with my fingers crossed, Airbus A330 will be the next Featured Article. Thanks in advance! --Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Watch for small formatting errors like doubled periods
  • Wouldn't really matter, would it?
  • Ref 5: page numbers?
  • Looking for book. Done
  • Ref 42: more specific location than USA?
  • Done
  • Ref 46: retrieval date?
  • Done
  • Ref 47: page number, publisher?
  • Link is there not to back anything up, since caption has nothing controversial.
  • Be consistent in what is wikilinked when, what is italicized, etc
  • What is "Seattle PI"?
  • Where is MBI? You've got at least two different locations for it
  • Done
  • Be consistent in how you name things. For example, will you call it Reuters India or in.reuters.com?
  • Done
  • Use a consistent date formatting
  • Still using both Airbus S.A.S. and Airbus
Airbus S.A.S. is used for references because that's the company's official name; the shortened "Airbus" is used in the article itself.
  • Ref 113, 124: press release from who?
  • Done
  • Done

Image review

  • Captions should meet same requirements for prose quality, sourcing, etc as article text. For example, "The Trent 700 was Rolls-Royce's first effort in supplying powerplants for Airbus." should be sourced; "The undercarriage fully retracted." needs editing for grammar, as it's not a complete sentence
  • Done
  • Some stacking of images
  • It depends on your monitor's resolution.
  • File:F-BUAJ-Airbus-A300B2-1981.jpg - France does not have freedom of panorama, and this image includes buildings
  • Done.
  • File:Egyptengine.jpg needs a more descriptive summary, including source information. Also, is that logo copyrighted? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added source. The logo is not 100% clear.

Note: Ref #101 is a deadlink (404). --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 15:57, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • User Fnlayson fixed it.
  • Support: This article meets the FA criteria: comprehensive, well-written, neutral, etc. This article appears comparable to Boeing 777, which earned FA about 1.5 years ago. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first support for Airbus A330. I really appreciate it, user Fnlayson :) Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 03:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't read the entire article and unfortunately probably won't have time to finish, but a few quick comments:

  • The quotebox at the bottom of the "Background" section should be reformatted as a blockquote - it's awkwardly formatted and the font is too small to read, at least on my screen it's formatting in tiny font.
  • Done
  • A quick scan shows some prose problems. For example - "The A300B9 was joined" - it's not a person and can't be joined, and also passive, needs rephrasing
Done, anything else?
  • "The B9 would offer the same range and payload as the McDonnell Douglas DC-10, but would be 25 percent more fuel efficient,[8] and would therefore be a viable replacement for the DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[9]" - three instances of "would" in this sentence
  • Done
  • "The specifications also revealed the large underfloor cargo volume that could hold five cargo pallets or 16 LD3 cargo containers in the forward, and four pallets or 14 LD3s in the aft hold;" - "also" probably not necessary because nothing has been revealed yet. And do specifications reveal or show?
  • Done

Haven't gotten any further, but I'd suggest finding an independent copyeditor. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Two copy-editors actually worked on the article few weeks back, and since there hasn't been any significant changes. Sp33dyphil Ready • to • Rumble 02:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is solid. After a brief review, which can now be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the article's lead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was not promoted by SandyGeorgia 16:38, 1 May 2011 [52].

The Autobiography of Malcolm X[edit]

Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC), — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Protonk (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because after a GAN and two peer reviews, we believe it is worthy of FA status. — GabeMc (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources were generally okayed at the last FAC. Few changes: some more citations have been added, along with an additional source. Brianboulton (talk) 12:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images were also okayed at the last FAC, I don't think there've been any changes since. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question/Comments:
    • What does "...has been a consistent best-seller since its 1965 publication" mean? I mean, how are you determining it has been a best-seller (especially since it "returned to the best-seller lists in the 1990s"), and how are you defining "consistent"? Does your source offer details?
    • "Haley's contribution to the work is unique" The adjective "unique" is kinda empty and WP:PEACOCK-ish here.
      • Perhaps I am not being direct enough. This phrase needs to go. His contribution was not unique in any greater sense; ghostwriters pretend to adopt their subjects' voice all the time. And if he is unique in the sense that he was the only ghostwriter working with X, then the observation is trivial.
        • I'll be a bit direct in response. Unique may be the wrong word, but there is an abundance of research and criticism on the exact relationship of Haley to Malcolm. He was not a traditional ghostwriter nor was he a co-author, and the scope of their collaboration remains a subject of discussion. In that sense there is a great deal which is "unique" about his contribution. It is difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You said it is "...difficult to read the article and conclude otherwise". Well, that's kinda my point, and I see it as a flaw rather than a feature. There are stretches of text that are not direct quotes and... may be cited, I don't remember, but I was under the impression that they weren't... and those stretches... just kinda... lionize Haley without saying who said it, and (here's the worst part!) without putting any distance between Wikipedia and that praise. It's OK to say "Person A said Haley rocks, person B said Haley is a saint, person C said Haley walks on water, then turns it into wine after he steps on it". That's OK, so long as those people are WP:RS etc. But the text of the article seems to frame a narrative... in Wikipedia's voice. I hope I can explain this: I'm not knocking Haley. I'm expressing a feeling that Wikipedia is adopting a stance on Haley. Wikipedia has no voice.• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'll step back a bit and say it is just as difficult to read the source material and conclude that the relationship between Malcolm and Haley was typical for a subject and a ghostwriter. I'm sympathetic to the claim that wikipedia shouldn't adopt a voice but I don't have any good solution apart from undertaking a "he said, she said" strategy. I'm less sure of the stance that the sources or the article are hagiographic--saying Haley's role was unique among ghostwriters (or some other flavor of the same claim) isn't saying that he is a great guy. It is simply an attempt to flesh out why and how the piece (AMX) adopted the voice it did. There are sections in the article describing Haley's attempts to censor AMX, to refactor Malcolms statements in order to preserve what Haley saw as a strong personal narrative and sources (namely Manning Marable) which plumb the depths of what book may have been written were Haley less intrusive. Their efforts are stymied by a lack of comment or cooperation from the heirs of either Haley or Malcolm. Without any secondary source gaining unrestricted access to the original marginal notes or letters of either man it is hard for a conclusive statement to be made. We are just doing our best to describe the "state of the art" in the sourcing today. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • On a tragic note the author of a recent book on malcolm X and Haley, Manning Marable, just passed away. His newest book (Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention) is likely to be a great source for the article. I'm sad to see the profession lose him. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All throughout this article, there are patches of text that... seem to have a voice. These may be adopting the voice(s) of one or more source(s)..? It seems especially glaring since there are other patches that are kinda bare-bones and rat-a-tat-tat.. sorry if this vague and unactionable. I'm thinking aloud here. Your thoughts are invited. • Ling.Nut (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Consistent best-seller": The source says "Given the compelling story The Autobiography of Malcolm X tells and the best-seller status it has enjoyed since publication in 1965, its passage to film would seem to have been a fait accompli long before "X" billboards hyping Spike Lee's much-anticipated film began popping up all over New York and beyond." The book has experienced strong sales throughout its history; according to a biography of Betty Shabazz, she was receiving royalties equivalent to an annual salary,[53] and she was only getting half of the royalties! In the early 1990s, the book actually returned to The New York Times Best Seller list. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll think about how this can be reworded.
    • "intentionally subsumed his authorial voice"... I don't think "subsumed" is the word you are looking for here.
    • On the Side of My People: A Religious Life of Malcolm X By Louis A. DeCaro, Jr. p. 4, haley edited his work with the assistance of Murray Fisher, associate editor for Playboy • Ling.Nut (talk) 06:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not gonna fly my colors just yet, but I can feel myself leaning toward Support. I have to type quickly without double-checking my thoughts but... There doesn't seem to be enough mention of the controversy about the accuracy of some details of Malcolm's life. Who said it? Where? The Summary section feels skimpy, especially since the second paragraph might need to be moved elsewhere... It might need to list all chapters and give a one-sentence summary of each, following the style of others (Bloom I think it was)... The critical reception part... I see very good references there but... something feels missing. Is there mention of the controversy in the WP:LEDE? If not, it must go there... The writing is much better than many other FACs and I feel myself accepting it more... It may be a while before I log in again. • Ling.Nut (talk) 13:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the comments about the critical reception completely. My fear is that there are no great sources which take to task the reviewers or attempt to stitch together a general picture of critique and reception. Protonk (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see a response to several (indeed, most) of my comments. Is silence disagreement, or...? • Ling.Nut (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the changes since the last FAC, I have a couple of comments:

  • "The influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on the perspective of its readers has often been acknowledged." My problem here is that the article seems to assume at the outset that the book has been influential (which it undoubtedly has) and then only look for acknowledgement of that fact. The article should seek to establish that it has been influential first. Perhaps something like "Several critics have noted the influence that The Autobiography of Malcolm X can have on its readers", and then you let the quotes do the talking (thinking aloud here).
  • A similar tense problem to last time: "Charles Solomon writes", "Howard Bruce Franklin described", "Concise Oxford Companion to African American Literature credits" (the latter two in the same sentence). To me, it seems clumsy.

Just some thoughts. Apterygial talk 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made that edit. I don't agree with your opinion that "The influence that [it] can have... has been acknowledged" assumes influence, while "Several critics have noted.." does not. I was trying to escape the tedium of repeated sentence structures... However, if you dislike the wording, WP:SOFIXIT. The structure of the sentence is not a key issue... As for the tense problem, I agree, and was thinking about what to do with that. • Ling.Nut (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree my alternative wording is not much better, but my point still stands. Similar to your point above, Ling.Nut, that the article has adopted a voice. It's certainly not a major point, but if any of the noms can offer an alternative wording, I'd be happy to hear it. Apterygial talk 03:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenses are now fine, but I'm still interested if the noms have any alternative wording for that first sentence. Apterygial talk 23:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input Apterygial, what is it about the first sentence that needs fixing? — GabeMc (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my first bullet-point above; is there anyway it can be worded so that the quotes establish it has been influential, rather than the article assuming it from the off? Apterygial talk 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of a source which would establish the influence of the book but not fall into the category of searching for acknowledgement of influence? Protonk (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that change. It's not a major point, but I think it's preferable the article says the book was influential (with a cite and supporting points) rather than noting that its influence has been acknowledged. Apterygial talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My concerns have been addressed, and after three FACs the article deserves promotion. Apterygial talk 23:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I found a few things to fix, but not much; good job. Feel free to revert my edits.

  • Although "contemporary" is commonly used by historians to mean "of the time", it's more likely to mean "modern" to most readers. I went with "of the day" and "of the time"; feel free to improvise. - Dank (push to talk) 04:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not on board with the present tense in "In 1990, Charles Solomon writes ...", but I understand that some people prefer a certain kind of consistency.
  • I'm fine with "bell hooks" lowercase, since her name is generally written that way in the press and in our sources, but Ms. hooks (ms. hooks?) hasn't yet succeeded in overturning the rule that sentences begin with a capital letter. If you'd prefer to lowercase her first name, then rewrite the sentence so that "bell" isn't the first word.
  • Support per standard disclaimer. I don't know much about literary criticism, so I can't comment much on the narrative. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - are this article's editors aware of this, and do they think it warrants mention in the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Marables' book was published *very* recently. And I (at least) haven't bought it yet. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm reading Marable's book. The article cites an essay written by Marable in 2009 and a 2007 interview. I don't expect the new book to include many revelations concerning Malcolm X's autobiography that Marable didn't discuss in the 2009 article, which I can provide if you'd like to see it. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - apologies for not reading this sooner. I think it's fairly strong, and quite well written, but I do have some comments:

  • Lead - the first sentence is too stuffed and hard to chunk. Consider splitting into two sentences?
  • six and a half - prob. should be hyphenated
  • The second paragraph of the "Summary" is more a description of genre. Either retitle the section, or split out into a separate "Genre" section
  • block quote in "Construction" - use single quotes inside the block quote
  • Should "Malcolm X: The Art of Autobiography" be in italics? Is it a book or an essay? Also, the first sentence of "Narrative presentation" is attributed in-text to Widemand but is cited to Wood
  • "Two Create One" - title of book or essay in a collection? If a collection the citation should to be fixed to reflect that
  • Consider adding topic sentences to begin the paras. For example the "Collaboration" section leads with a title making this sentence hard to follow without context: "In Making Malcolm: The Myth and Meaning of Malcolm X, Dyson criticizes historians and biographers of the time for re-purposing the Autobiography as a transcendent narrative by a "mythological" Malcolm X without being critical enough of the underlying ideas"
  • Identify the authors - who are they? scholars, critics, etc?
  • "Collaboration" - integrate the block quote and add introduction
  • "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; editing, revising and composing the Autobiography was a power struggle between two men with sometimes competing ideas of the final shape for the book." - this could be a topic sentence to begin the section?
  • Single quotes in the quote box
  • "Haley played an important role in persuading Malcolm X not to re-edit the book as a polemic against Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam at a time when Haley already had most of the material needed to complete the book, and asserted his authorial agency when the Autobiography's "fractured construction" " - this is already explained in the "Construction" section and feels redundant, unless somehow the two are combined
  • "Collaberation" is very stuffed - either needs subsections or trimming back. I'm thinking the page almost over-emphasizes the collaboration to some degree. Either Haley's involvement should be trimmed back, or more added about Malcolm X's contributions. For example, how and when were the interviews conducted?
  • Why did Doubleday cancel?
  • Was it a bestseller in the sense that it consistently made the bestseller lists, or did it sell well?
  • Link Newsweek
  • Tense problem here: "Newsweek also highlighted the limited insight and criticism in The Autobiography but praises it for power and poignance" - tense shift
    • I've struck this, but it's a bit awkward now. Do you mind if I have go at it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, Truman Nelson in The Nation lauds the epilogue as revelatory and "skillful amanuensis"
  • Same sentence: should it be "a skillful amanuensis"?
  • In 1968 film producer Marvin Worth commissioned a screenplay based on The Autobiography of Malcolm X from novelist James Baldwin; - rewrite to something like: "In 1968 film produced Marvin Worth asked novelist James Baldwin to write a screenplay based on ...."
  • Link to Lee's film
  • Can the film adaptation section be combined with the legacy section, or somewhere other than where it is. It doesn't seem to fit in the "Publication, sales" section.
  • Overall I think some of the blockquotes can be trimmed down and maybe even moved into quote boxes. I've done this to an extent with The Sun Also Rises and I think if the quote won't fit in a quote box then it's too long. Also, having the blockquote in the text forces the reader to wade through it - but I tend to skip them altogether.

Generally I think with a bit of reorg, this is in pretty good shape. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of making the recommended changes. Wood is the editor of a collection of essays, several of which are cited here. That's why statements attributed to Wideman and Rampersad, for example, are cited to pages in Wood. Would it be better if we cite the essay in the footnote as well? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see if you're using citation templates or not. If citation templates, then put the essay title in the chapter parameter and fill in the editor parameters and it will format correctly. At any rate, it needs to be cited to the person who did the writing, not directly to the person who edited the collection. I'll go check your citation methods and report back if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citation for edited volumes is pretty standard outside wikipeda but I have no way of knowing how standard it is within wikipedia. We can cite it within text as "Wideman says" but the footnote is going to point to Wood (or Wideman in Wood). Protonk (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely familiar with the citation style you're using, but it should be formatted similar to this one I've done freehand: Aldridge, John W. "Afterthought on the Twenties and The Sun Also Rises". in Wagner-Martin, Linda (ed.) New Essays on Sun Also Rises. Cambridge University Press (1990). ISBN 0-521-30204-8

Hope this helps. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation style isn't one I would have chosen either, but I'll add chapter titles. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be back later to continue, but I've made many of the changes you recommended. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be making more of your recommended changes later and tomorrow. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I read this book fairly recently, so was interested in the article. Thoughts on the first few sections:
  • It begins with an incident during his mother's pregnancy - seems almost deliberately vague. Either describe the incident or just say "it begins during his mother's pregnancy"; don't leave it mysterious.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the "summary" section could probably be expanded a little. There's also a slightly jarring change of tense in the final sentence where it suddenly changes to say Haley "summarized" whereas previously the book "documents" and "addresses".
Fixed jarring change of tense. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article describes Haley's description of Malcolm X's final days as an "epilogue", which suggests it is at the back, but certainly in my version of the book this section came first. Is this unusual or is there a slightly better word to describe the section?
The Peguin edition places the epilogue at the front, but the first edition had it at the back, as an epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy - any more info on this? Did the contract really tell him to write something which looked like verbatim copy (which seems odd)?
I'm hoping I can find time to look through the second half of the article soon. It looks good, with perhaps just a little tightening needed. Trebor (talk) 00:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"signed a contract to limit his authorial discretion in favor of producing what looked like verbatim copy " the second half of the article should make this clear. Failing that the afterword by haley mentions this specifically. Protonk (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • It says "purchased the original manuscripts of The Autobiography of Malcolm X for a sum of $100,000". I think it would be more plain English if it replaced 'purchased' with 'bought' and deleted 'a sum of'. Not a big deal, just my minor comment.
Hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Jakob.scholbach (talk). I should say right at the beginning that I'm not at all knowledgeable in this field, in particular I have not read the book. I'll try to review the whole article in steps. Already now, though, there are many things which are unclear or don't read smoothly, so I'm sceptical. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • The lead section suffers from a fundamental problem, namely that it does not summarize the article adequately. I have not yet read the whole article, but a quick glance at the table of contents shows, e.g., that "Legacy" is not at all covered by the lead section. As a simple rule of thumb, I suggest that the lead reflect each section roughly proportionally. So, the lead needs a thorough overhaul anyway, but I'm still giving some more detailed comments:
The "Legacy" section is summarized in the last paragraoh of the lead, i.e, "brilliant, painful, important book", "... one of ten "required reading" nonfiction books. A screenplay adaptation of the Autobiography by James Baldwin and Arnold Perl provided the source material for Spike Lee's 1992 film Malcolm X." — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • you keep repeating dates ("published in 1965", "between 1963 and 1965" but it is unclear from the lead when M.X. died). Might try a more streamlined handling of the various dates. For example, why do you consider "published in 1965" so important that you include it in the first sentence?
Clarified that Malcolm X was killed in 1965.
Why shouldn't the article mention the book's publication date in the first sentence of the lead? — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contemporary scholars" is unclear: what time do you refer to
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may have regarded" ?? why "may". Did they or did they not. --- After reading the article, this is a bit clearer. Still, the wording is a bit confusing.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Malcolm X ..." This sentence is very long and reads a bit clumsy, especially the end.
I think this is fine, and your opinion is not actionable. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We read "modern scholarship tends to regard him as an essential collaborator who intentionally subsumed his authorial voice to allow readers to feel as though Malcolm X were speaking directly to them". 6 verbs in one sentence, multiple relative clauses? This clearly is actionable. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haley's proactive censorship" is vague and unspecific. In what way did he "censor" the manuscript? (For example: did he reinforce the antisemitic material or did he tone it down?)
Censorship implies Haley toned down the antisemitic material versus reinforcing it. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph you have tons of dates. It is unclear to me why they are important. In comparison to the coverage of other sections in the lead, this is overly detailed.
There are three dates in the paragraph, one as an example of a contemporary review, one to show it's influence 30 years later, and one to inform the reader of Spike Lee's 1992 film, again, as an example of the book's legacy. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "epilogue" footnote looks quite ugly and is also not necessary, I believe. If you consider the footnote important, consider merging it in the lead. Otherwise merge it somewhere in the main text.
The "epilogue" footnote was written to satisfy another FAC reviewer who pointed out that their UK copy (Penguin), places the epilogue at the beginning of the book. Nonetheless, the name of Haley's chapter is, Epilogue. — GabeMc (talk) 22:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

  • You mention a couple of things covered in the book. I keep wondering what is maybe not contained in the book. From Malcolm X I see that he had a family. Is this not covered in the book? More generally, to get a sharper picture I think it is important to contrast the content of the autobiography with other biographies.
Jakob.scholbach, you admit to not having read the book, so why assume the summary is not adequate? — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't assume that the summary is not adequate! I'm just wondering "hm, he had a wife and six daugthers" (according to Malcolm X), is this not contained in the autobio? If it is in the autobio, then you might want to add this (unless, say, it is very briefly mentioned in the book)? If it is not in the autobio, you also might want to point out that he didn't cover his family life in the book. After all, that's something one would expect in a typical (auto)biography.
  • "74-page epilogue". I feel the 74 pages are overly specific, especially since page numbers change in every edition and I as a reader of the article don't even know how long the book is in total.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I overlooked this earlier, but there is still "These comments became the 74-page epilogue" somewhere else. I'm not saying you should remove this, but being this specific all of a sudden just pops out. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

  • This complaint applies to many other spots as well: you put very much in front all these literary scholars. The only neutrally formulated sentence is the first one, which gives us just 4 wikilinks. Not much. Any other sentence deals with the view of a particular person. I guess mostly it is less important who said this and that about the book? If so, consider reworking things as "Literary critic Arnold Rampersad and Malcolm X biographer Michael Eric Dyson agree that the narrative of the Autobiography resembles the Augustinian approach to confessional narrative." into maybe "The narrative of the Autobiography has been described as ..."
We mention Arnold Rampersad and Michael Eric Dyson by their full name here so that further in the article we can use just Rampersad, and Dyson, and the reader will know that these scholars have been established. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "came too close to the truth" ?? what truth
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be a stupid remark, but I don't understand how the rhetorical power is possibly related to the evolving character? Isn't this the power of the actual content of the book?
Paul John Eakin and Alex Gillespie are quoted and cited here, it's not their, or our fault that you do not understand what they are saying. The rhetorical power of the work is derived in part by the subject's evolving life story, i.e. disillusionment with The Nation and uncertainty in Malcolm's philosophy. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, given that the book was started 2 years before his death, one is wondering how the character can possibly evolve this much. Consider fleshing this out a bit, i.e., what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?
Are you suggesting that a human cannot significantly evolve in 24 months? As far as, "what dramatical events took place in these two years in M's life?", this is covered in the Summary section. — GabeMc (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Construction

  • This is also a general comment and problem the article has: as far as I have read now, the possible roles a second person contributing to such a work are never clearly delineated? Basically this amounts to the questions: what is a coauthor, what is a ghostwriter, what is an interviewer? Once this is clear, it will be much easier to write this article (and for the reader, to understand). E.g. you say "Haley coauthored [...], but also performed the basic functions [...] writing and [...] editing the Autobiography". Why "but"?
That is kind of the point of the article, Haley took on many roles and he is variously attributed as the work's coauthor, ghostwriter, and editor. Per "Why 'but'?", this is fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As I said below, I think the article would benefit if you could come up with a "definition" of the notions of "coauthor", "ghostwriter" and then explain why certain scholars regard H this or that way. Is this possible/reasonable? Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which angered the activist" -- Haley or the Nation of Islam?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Haley eventually shifted the focus" -- it is unclear what happened after this shift. Did he just keep interviewing M about his mother then?
Haley shifted the focus away from The Nation, and toward X's life story, which began with questions about his mother, but certainly the reader knows the work is not entirely about X's mother. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I was just puzzled by the jump 1st) this long quote makes it a point that MX had lots of things to say about his mother, then 2nd) the next paragraph talks about Haley's role. If the two paragraphs need to be together, I just want to suggest rounding off the quote by a sentence such that the transition to the next paragraph is less sharp. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next paragraph is awkward: first you say H. is "nominally" a ghostwriter (what does this actually mean, nominally?). Then you suggest that it was "black scholars" who defended this point. First, who were these black scholars? Given that you name any other scholar around, you should do so here, too. More importantly, there seems to be a contradiction on this "nominally" and the vague attribution to the black scholars.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "took pains" -- unencyclopedic language
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haley's contribution is "unique" -- what do you mean by that? Unique sounds weaselly.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the contract you talk about in the last paragraph the one mentioned earlier? If so, I suggest reshaping this discussion by making this a more clearly delineated paragraph. Maybe even a section "The contract"?
  • In the "Summary" section you say that the epilogue summarizes the last days, now you say that it contained Haley's view on M, as well as a description of the agreement. I'm sure it's all in there, but then you should overhaul what is written in the summary section.

Narrative presentation

  • "in order to allow readers to insert themselves into the broader socio-psychological narrative, neither coauthor's voice is as strong as it could have been" strikes me as quite vague. Come on, what should we read into "the broader socio-psychological narrative"? Also, what do you mean bei "neither coauthor's"?
  • Is the quote "You are serving many masters..." explicitly referring to MX's autobiography? From reading the quote, it looks like a general description of the traps etc. in writing a biography. If this impression is right, I suggest removing this quote since it is then off-topic, or at least too long. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wideman argues that Haley wrote [...], but he hchose to write the epilogue ..." What is meant by "but he chose": is this now a fact or is this still something that Wideman is suggesting. Also, why "but"?
  • "requiring more than the writer's prose alone" -- unclear to me. What writer are you referring to, here? The subject of an autobio or the ghostwriter?
  • "Though a writer's skill ..." -- same comment as with the other quote above.

Collaboration

  • Most of this section does not seem to be connected to the collbaroation. The first sentence does talk about it, but already the second does not. Also the lines starting with "To Rampersad, ... " is totally unrelated to the collaboration, it seems. If I'm not mistaken, this requires a serious overhaul of this whole section, possibly splitting into two (e.g., Collaboration and Myth-making or the like).
  • "Rampersad suggests that since his 1965 assassination, Malcolm X has "become the desires of his admirers, who have reshaped memory, historical record and the autobiography according to their wishes, which is to say, according to their needs as they perceive them."" -- this is not even related to the autobiography. I suggest to try to delineate more clearly what belongs in this article and what does not.
  • The quote of Joe Wood: same problem: slightly off-topic.
  • "much of the available" -- I think this shoud be "many"
  • "the fiction of the completed self" -- What do you mean by completed self?
  • "The collaboration between Malcolm X and Haley took on many dimensions; ..." is a verbatim copy of the first sentence of section 3.2.
  • The quote "'You can't bless Allah!' he exclaimed, changing 'bless' to 'praise.' " is nice, but without context difficult to appreciate. Expound it a bit more?
  • Image caption "A young Haley" -- weird wording. Why don't give the (rough) date when the picture was taken. Also, was Haley this young when he wrote the book? No better picture around?
  • Generally speaking, this section is very long. Most, including me, would say too long. More focus on the topic and, more importantly, grouping the material in a more efficient way (see above comments) would be beneficial.
  • "Andrews suggests that Haley's role expanded ..." -- this is just a repetition in your words of the quote. Maybe trim this down a bit?
  • The picture of MX and Martin Luther King is off-topic. The image caption seems to be particularly irrelevant. This article is about the book.
  • "confounding factors of the publisher" -- this is the first mention of the publisher. Consider telling its name and expound briefly (a big publishing house, notable prior publications...?)

Publication

  • "climbed 300%" -- 300% of what?
  • In the editions list, maybe remove the authors, since it is always MX and Haley? Also consider moving this list to the references section. Such a list is somehow very sober all of a sudden.
  • "Missing chapters" -- this interesting bit comes surprisingly late and it is also not quite clear why you make this a subsection of "Publication".

Legacy

  • The delineation of this and section 4 is unclear. E.g. the quote of Franklin could just as well be in section 4. Where exactly do you draw the line?
  • "Bell hooks" ??
  • "She is not alone" -- who is she?
  • Why are screenplay adaptations part of legacy? I consider this more closely related to the list of editions and the publication aftermath.

External links all need accessdates.

Oppose It should be said, WP can be happy to have this article, and I'd like to thank those who contributed to it! By and large, the article is well-written in terms of prose (except for a number of vague hand-waving expressions). Also, to an outsider it looks well-researched. I cannot judge whether it is balanced and presents the facts unbiasedly, so I'm not commenting on this. My main and most important concern with the article is that it does not succeed to convey a clear picture of this topic, at least as far as I can tell. While I understand that there are some subtleties in such a topic, most of this could be plain and easy. Most of all, I think this is because the article is not structured clearly enough. For example, we have details about the collaboration all over the place: the contract is being talked about in various places, elsewhere some facts about Haley's contribution are given, again in another section we find material on H's conversation with the publisher concerning this topic. Gauging Haley's contribution is intermingled with discussions about MX's (and his followers') building of his "myth". In some places, the article seems self-contradictory (or at least not coherently written, for example the content of the epilogue). To be comprehensive, it seems necessary to present more background: what other biographies have been written about MX, what other (comparable) co-authored autobio's have been written. How do literary scholars define/delineate the role of a ghostwriter, a coauthor, an interviewer, an amanuensis? Applying these criteria, what role did Haley take (according to the scholars, still)? Also, the article is too short on Haley's life and other work (independently of AMX). After all he is an important contributor to the thing. Also, surprisingly few quotes of the actual Autobiography are given. These could and should be used to explain the prose style of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob.scholbach (talk • contribs) 16:58, April 30, 2011


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_2011&oldid=431668127"