Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/June 2008

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [1].

[edit] Star of Bethlehem

Nominator ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator does not appear to be in the top 10 (nor on the list of) editors who have contributed to the article. --Moni3 (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see on the talk page of the article any query about nominating for FA. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I'm responsible for most of the writing in this article and it's an unexpected surprise to it nominated. Kauffner (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:FAC instructions, pls identify as significant contributor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I apologize for not informing the significant contributors before hand. That was a mistake on my part, still not entirely used to the FAC process. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

This FAC has broken every rule in the FAC rulebook. Anyways, on to comments:

• Format references so all include title, url, publisher, and accessdate. For bible passages, I would suggest using {{cite book}} and {{harvnb}} instead.
• Lots of MOS issues, such as ""astrologer"[9]) arrived" — see WP:FOOTNOTE
• "Matthew. [8]" — space
• for all date ranges, use en dash, per WP:DASH — same goes for all bible passages with dashes, I believe, and for all page ranges, too.
• "(or 'wise men') " — use double quotes

These are only from a quick sample of the article. Gary King (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think {{bibleverse}} is the proper template for citing scripture, since it would be difficult to fill in a cite book template for the bible. And I believe the other issues listed here besides maybe some ndashes still and citing (which I will fill in when I come back from school tonight, if someone doesn't do it before hand) have been corrected. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Far too many prose issues.

• No citation for the alternate names in the lead.
• Footnotes as Gary said
• Don't begin section titles with articles.
• "The magi then went to Bethlehem, found Jesus and his mother, paid him homage, worshipped him, gave gifts, and then returned to their "own country".[3]" - very awkward sentence. Consider splitting up into several sentences.
• "In modern times, astronomers have proposed various explanations for the star, including a nova, a planet, a comet, an occultation, and a conjunction (massing of planets)." - also awkward. What do they mean "including a nova"? If you mean they thought it could have been a nova, make that explicit.
• Weasel word - "many". Also, that paragraph is too short; consider merging. In fact, there's many other short paragraphs that hsould be merged.
• "Some writers have suggested Luke was referring to another event such as the mass oath taking when Augustus was given the title "father of the nation" (3-2 BC)" - vague, weaselly. Make "some" explicit.
• "The magi may have decided to travel to Jerusalem when they somehow, "conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with that of the star, had actually come into the world", according to Origen.[22]" - I believe that the comma after the "somehow" is incorrect.

I may search for more later. In any case, I won't be able to support unless this is given a full copyedit by a pair of fresh eyes. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think this is a great starting point for this article, but I also think that there is work to be done before it reaches FA. Here are some examples of issues (this is not a comprehensive list):
  • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, do not use calloutquotes.
  • A lot of the article is cited specifically to the Bible, with no supporting citation to a scholarly work. This is problematic, because it is original research to point to a certain Bible verse and say it means X or is representative of Y concern.
  • The article presents the statements in the Bible as historical facts. This is not an era in history that I have studied heavily, but I would think that there might be historical facts that dispute some of this. To me, the tone of the article feels a little like sermonizing.
  • There is nothing in the article about the legacy of the star and how it is viewed today (or even throughout history). For example, see Jeanne HAnson's Star of Bethlehem: The History, Mystery, and Beauty of the Christmas Star [2]
  • I would expect there to be more scholarly sources cited in the article. I did a quick search on Google Books and Google scholar and found many references that have not been consulted. Those that have been consulted seem to be only referencing one or two facts. It makes me wonder what else was in those sources that has been left out, making the article not as comprehensive.

Karanacs (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• As far as the issue of whether the Bible is history or not, this is addressed specifically the section "historical fiction." As for the other sections, mythology can be analysised for its own sake and on its own terms. Kauffner (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Many WP:MoS breaches and the prose is poor; some sentences are very difficult to understand:

The statement that Herod was "troubled" by what the magi said has told him implies that he was disturbed by their statement that the "king of the Jews" had been born, since that was his own title. GrahamColm^Talk 18:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: the "historical fiction" section - I'm pretty sure it should be renamed to "Historiography", which seems to be what the author intended. Raul654 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Double check that all web site references (including pdfs) give a last access date and publisher
• Double check that all book references give page numbers and any other bibliographical details, including author, publisher, and ISBN when known.
• Double check that all website references give a title for the web link, not just a number
• Link checker tool shows a few dead links.
• External links is for websites, Further reading is for printed material.

When that's all double checked, I'll come back and check the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 01:23, 8 June 2008 [3].

[edit] Doggystyle

Self-nomination. I'm nominating this article because I have been working on the article for about a month now and I have made significant additions to the page. I put it through a GAN, which it passed after being put on hold, and it has also been through a Peer Review, which I have used to improve on the parts which needed a little work. I think the article now passes the FA criteria and deserves to be a FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk • contribs) 21:52, May 15, 2008

Restart, old nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Ensure references are uniform. Some are using plain text, some are using {{cite web}}, causing some of the references to say 'Accessed on' and some to say 'Retrieved on'.
• "I retains the" → "It retains the"
• U.S. → United States — I would prefer this, especially at least once before using the acronym.
• "as well as Rolling Stones "Essential Recordings of the 90s"." Looks really odd when the 's' is not linked together; it should also be Rolling Stone's
• "contributions on Dre's The Chronic." → full name on first occurrence, so 'Dr. Dre'.
• "hip". [1][7]" → Extra space?
• "won't kill"[9]" — missing a period?

There are probably more; these are some comments on only the first section of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some are already clean-up. --Efe (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahm, who is Phillip Woldermarian? He should be identified. --Efe (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think all of those things have been taken care of. To do with Phillip Woldermarian, he was a member of a rival gang who was murdered. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Woldermarian must be identified there. Reading that part alone will leave us hanging. --Efe (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• inconsistent "Dr. Dre" and "Dre". It should be the former.
• Time is identified as magazine. How about NME and Rolling Stone? Please identify also The New York Times, and many more. --Efe (talk) 01:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
• There are lots of subsections that are only occupied by a single paragraph. Maybe we can merge them? --Efe (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've used "Dr. Dre" throughout and added "magazine" to the publications that needed it. What sections do you think would be better merged together ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That subsections with only one paragraph. If its possible, you can merge them. --Efe (talk) 03:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.acclaimedmusic.net/061024/A896.htm a reliable source? Looking at this site, I'm not seeing it supporting statments like "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s, and one of the most important hip hop albums released to date." or "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic" and is included in The Source magazine's 100 Best Rap Albums, as well as Rolling Stone magazine's list of Essential Recordings of the 90s."

The website accumulates the various "Best Ever" accolades bestowed on a song/album by different publications. indopug (talk) 16:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the album was included in The Essential Recordings of the 90s, Top 200 Albums of All time and The 90s Top 100 Essential Albums, I think that supports the view that "The record is regarded by many critics to be one of the most significant albums of the 1990s" and since it was included in the 10 Essential Hip-Hop Albums, Hip Hop's 25 Greatest Albums by Year 1980-98 and The 100 Best Rap Albums, I think that supports that the album was "one of the most important hip hop albums released to date". Also, basically the whole 'Critical Reception' section supports "Doggystyle is viewed by many critics and fans as a "hip hop classic". - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.dubcnn.com/interviews/snoopdogg06/part4/ a reliable source?
• Or http://www.hiphopdx.com/?
• Or http://www.everyhit.com?

Otherwise sources look okay, and links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Like Spellcast said before, DubCNN is ok because they did an interview with Snoop who explained about the album. HipHopDX is used for an interview. EveryHit seems reliable, but I'll remove it and the information extracted from it if other users believe it untrustworthy. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because it is an interview, doesn't mean it's reliable. We need to be sure that they transcribed the interview correctly, didn't introduce bias by not putting something in that he said, things like that. Generally, the discussion on everyhit.com hasn't concluded that it's reliable, but it hasn't concluded it's unreliable. It looks unreliable to me, but that's my opinion. I'll let others decide on that. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are still serious problems with prose, and also some of the claims made. Take the following almost random couple of sentences:

The album is considered as one of the first G-funk albums which many rappers duplicated in later years.[1]

Black culture

Doggystyle has considerably affected African American culture. Its influence on gangsta rap has lowered the status of women in black society.[20][14][41] Some publications have held the rap genre responsible for a number problems

• The grammar of the first sentence is all over the place.
• The claim contained in the second couple of sentences are far too ambitious, and completely unsupported by at least two of the three references cited (the third, I can't access).
• The final sentence is missing a word.

I tried to do some copy-editing, but really the prose is a long, long way off. Here's another example: "This has been attained through the ability to communicate free of censorship, which has allowed hip hop culture to become a dominant style and ethos throughout the world." Not a good sentence.

As a whole, the article has a way to go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - I copyedited this yesterday (fixed redundancy, incorrect word choices, and other prose issues). However, this is still not ready. Please format all the references using {{cite news}} and {{cite web}} (or alternatively, use {{Citation}} solely). In addition, there are various parts of the article which represent ambiguity which I was not able to solve. I share the concerns of Jbmurray. The most problematic section is "Black culture" which continually says "This..." after sentences, and "It has also...". Please state who you're quoting and be specific to avoid confusion to the reader. Avoid usage of "This" to begin a sentence - restate what is being referred to. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the 'Black culture' section, but it may need another copy-edit. Does an article have to use a citation template ? because I have just used plain text in the references throughout ? - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See both Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for lists of copyeditors. See WP:CITE regarding the citation issue. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to use any templates; just be consistent throughout. indopug (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but at the moment there are already usages of Cite web in the article, from what I last saw. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The article now uses plain text in references throughout. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I supported the previous nomination, and I still feel the same way. Well written, excellent references. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose. Prose is not of required standard; from lead alone:

• "Released by the album's producer Dr. Dre's record label Death Row" - the use of two possessive apostrophes makes it hard to parse.
• "while some of its musical stylizations" - "while" isn't accurate; "and" would suffice. It is not very clear about how the two albums are related.
• "Snoop Dogg was arrested in connection with Phillip Woldermarian's death; a charge he was not acquitted of until 1996." - I'm no expert, but I don't think being arrested in connection with a death is a "charge" from which you can be acquitted. And the phrasing "not acquitted of until..." seems to convey an odd emphasis - surely "he was acquitted in 1996" would be more neutral and clear.
• "one of the most" is repeated in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which would be better to avoid.
• "Both" at the start of the next sentence is redundant; "introduced" should be "introduce"; "bring" should be "bringing". Using "West Coast hip hop" so close to "1990s hip hop" is jarring; can it be avoided?
• "by 2003 it has sold seven million" - should be "had sold", year and number of sales both seem pretty arbitrary
• "It was the fastest-selling hip hop recording in the U.S., only surpassed by..." - obviously ridiculous.

Article needs a lot of work. Trebor (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—Just like my recent declaration at the previous nom page. TONY (talk) 01:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:46, 7 June 2008 [4].

[edit] Insane Clown Posse

The article has been successfully listed as a GA, and after a lot of hard work, I think that it's ready for Featured Article candidacy. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

• Nominate and Support. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Oppose

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.publicitywhore.com/pwblast28/OTW/shaggy.html
  • http://www.murderdog.com/archives/icp/Insane_Clown_Posse.html
  • http://www.mediafire.com/?fzik40fxjkv
  • http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/htjcw2.html
  • http://www.solie.org/titlehistories/ttjcw2.html
• "Members Joseph Bruce ("Violent J") and Joseph Utsler ("Shaggy 2 Dope") met in a suburb north of Detroit and participated in various backyard wrestling rings, developing the skills and showmanship that they would eventually utilize during their careers" - Which suburb? - please be specific if possible.
• "The album sold enough copies before being recalled to reach number 63 on the Billboard charts" - No sales figures available?
• "While Abbiss told the press that Disney had stopped production of The Great Milenko to avoid further controversy" - This sentence doesn't seem to make sense when you read the sentence that comes before it.

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

• "Disney claimed that the boycott was not related to the company's discontinuation of the album, stating that their review board had "messed up" and that once executives learned of the album's "inappropriate" lyrics, they decided it "did not fit the Disney image." - Signs of redundancy in places, this is just one example. This sentence reads fine without "that" being used three times.

• Rewritten. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

• There are other examples of redundancy throughout the article - please get a copyeditor new to the text to go through it. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• The prose is good, but I recommend a full copyedit by an editor new to the text. Please see both Peer review/volunteers and LOCE/Members for lists of people who can help. Do not hesitate to contact a few people on their Talk pages!
• Links checked out fine with the link checker tool.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Article has been copyedited by Startstop123. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

• As shown by Laser brain and others, this needs another copyedit - but before that, I would suggest withdrawing this and working on it some more to weed out any POV. There are still sourcing problems, and problems with comprehensiveness throughout I'm afraid. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 17:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes http://www.livedaily.com/ a reliable site? I can't find an about us page.
• Just a note, current ref 59 Williams Margo "Friends thought helping Gay Bar ..." is blocked by some ISPs, so I wasn't able to check it's reliablility.
• I share the above concerns about Publicity Whore and MurderDog. I didn't see the others in the article, though, so no idea if I would have an concern with them or not.

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — LiveDaily is a music news and concert ticket website. Although Publicity Whore and MurderDog are not well-known websites, the comments in their interviews with Utsler and Bruce check up with what the duo has stated in regards to the fued in video interviews. These links are the best sources I have been able to find for this information, aside from a series of YouTube videos uploaded by a fan, and I don't think that those would be allowed here. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

• Comment — I removed the LiveDaily link in favor of a printed source. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

Oppose

• Where are the Musical style and Influences sections? They are needed to make a band article comprehensive. (See R.E.M., The Smashing Pumpkins)

• I have written a "Style and influences" section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

• No music samples?

• I added a couple of samples, one from Carnival of Carnage, the other from The Amazing Jeckel Brothers. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

• None of those non-free pictures except the album cover seem to satisfy WP:NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." indopug (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the Psychopathic Records logo, but kept the other images, as they illustrate significant information (their mainstream success and their live performances). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

AMG discusses the music of each album in reasonable detail; see if you can't pick common styles to all their records as well as how their music has evolved/changed over time (that "earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." is a good start, but needs expanding). You can also see Radiohead for guidance. You should discuss their lyrics: "racist", "crass", "sexist", "juvenile" etc seem to be buzzwords. All-in-all, just go through what Rolling Stone, Allmusic etc have to say about their music, image etc and try to summarize. indopug (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

No need to mention the guests who appeared into every album; that's unnecessary detail and is meant for the album articles. Eg: "which featured guest appearances from Ice-T, Ol' Dirty Bastard and Snoop Doggy Dogg." and "featuring appearances by comedians John G. Brennan, Harland Williams and Rudy Ray Moore, and punk band The Misfits". indopug (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

• Oppose, some basic work needed before this is ready. Before I can even review the prose, you'll need to fix your links to sources. All of the MTV news stories are broken links. The fair use images have to go—you don't have a good rationale for using any of them. --Laser brain (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment — I rewrote the fair use rationales for each of the images. MTV's website appears to be down for the moment, but these links were working the last time I checked them, and should be working again in the next day or so. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC))
  • Okay, will check MTV again tomorrow. For the images, I should have been more clear: I don't think there is any rationale for using them. The album cover can be used in the article about the album only. The live images are replaceable with free alternatives. I would just remove them - insisting on fair use images in this article will quickly sink the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Removed fair use images. Added another Commons-licensed image from Flickr. Took my own picture of a shelf of Faygo and added it to the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

• Comment - Laser brain, the MTV links are working fine for me. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 07:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Wait a sec - since when were fair-use album covers categorically not allowed in main articles? They are fine per policy "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." I got Stereolab to FA with plenty of album covers, with the necessary critical commentary in the text. - Merzbow (talk) 22:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: After reviewing the prose today, my opposition stands. It's not up to the professional standard required by FA criterion 1a. It's also not properly sourced per criterion 1c. I found issues in almost every sentence. In my opinion this needs further research, attention from a strong copy-editor, then a more substantive peer review (contact editors from the volunteer list). Suggest withdrawing to work on it and coming back when it's ready. Some examples follow, just from the first few paragraphs:
  • The lead is too short and does not summarize the main points of the article.

• What else needs to be summarized? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

• What else is discussed in the article? Check the lead on other musical article FAs. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Expanded lead. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• • Much of the History section relies on primary sources but includes more than basic facts (interpretation and POV). Primary sources are OK for basic facts like DOB and family but nothing else.

• I don't see any POV or interpretation. I think the article does a pretty good job of detailing ICP's history, while remaining as neutral as possible, and offers some objective criticism of the individual albums and their style of music. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

• You don't see it because you wrote the article. Need secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Bruce and Utsler founded the independent record label Psychopathic Records with manager Alex Abbiss, which produces and distributes works by Juggalo musicians, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." Poor organization and unfamiliar terminology.. what are "Juggalo musicians"?

• That would be Juggalos who rap or play in rock bands (like Zug Izland or Motown Rage). Rewritten to read "which distributes music by hip hop and rock acts inspired by Insane Clown Posse, in addition to Bruce and Utsler's own music." (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

• • "Joseph Bruce ("Violent J") and Joseph Utsler ("Shaggy 2 Dope") met in a suburb north of Detroit and participated in various backyard wrestling rings, developing the skills and showmanship that they would eventually use during their careers." Lots of issues.. what is participating in a backyard wrestling ring? "Skills and showmanship" is POV sourced to a primary source. Need secondary sources.

• Took out the "skills and showmanship" remark. Rewrote the rest of the paragraph for clarification. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

• Still need secondary sources. --Laser brain (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "... in the ghettos of Delray" Colloquial use of "ghetto" is incorrect and unsourced.

• Changed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

• • "Bruce, Utsler and Hill formed a gang, calling themselves the Inner City Posse." Why not "... a gang called Inner City Posse"? --Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

It's GA, but it really needed more prose work before coming to FAC. Here's some stuff from one section...

• Several of the quotes in the Style and influences section aren't attributed in text, and thus are rather awkward/meaningless.
• "Insane Clown Posse's earlier work features a rawer, minimalistic hip hop sound, while their later work features a more rock-oriented sound." - Active voice would work better here.
• 2nd para of this section has a few "also" one after the other.
• "Insane Clown Posse has influenced similar acts, such as Twiztid, Blaze Ya Dead Homie, Anybody Killa and Boondox." - How? Says who?

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• I made a few changes here and there (removal of repeated uses of "also"), and fixed the part about acts ICP has influenced to correspond with All Music Guide. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Comments

• "music.[62][4] The word" — Refs in ascending order

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• "increased sales [14] and" — one extra space

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• "charts [36] and has" — same here, extra space

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• "various backyard rings." — link "backyard rings" otherwise we just think it links to backyard

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

• "who had reportedly paid $1 million to buy" — first mention of currency, so use US$ per WP:CURRENCY

• Fixed. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

Gary King (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [5].

[edit] Brazil

previous FAC

This comprehensive article provides a really good overview of contemporary Brazil. The writing is good and the facts are well sourced, I fully support its promotion to a featured article. Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 04:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King (talk · contribs)

Oppose There are several problems with this article; namely:

• Several uncited paragraphs ("Within Brazil's current borders...", "In 1808, the Portuguese court", and the first four paragraphs of "Subdivisions"). If the nearest upcoming reference references all of the preceding paragraphs, then please still explicitly place those references in the preceding paragraphs so every paragraph has a reference. Shouldn't be too difficult.
• I spot at least a few unreliable sources; hopefully I can save User:Ealdgyth some trouble here. The last time I checked, World66, for instance, was a wiki, and is used as a reference several times in this article. A few of the references are also unformatted (with only the title and URL). There are also a few dead links — about half a dozen.

I would love to see this article reach FA status, but these are only a handful of the issues that exist in this article, unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've worked on the article and believe that it has the potential to be featured, but is not ready at the moment. There are issues with formatting (not all references are formatted correctly, I spot numerous MoS problems), reliable sources (as GaryKing has pointed out), and the fact that there is an ongoing debate about content on the talk page that should be resolved. --Kakofonous (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Refs need to state when they are in a non-English language. Numbers of them are.
• What is IBGE?
• I'm not sure what http://www.fundacaooscaramericano.org.br/eng/Collection/Colonial_Brazil/colonial_brazil.html is supporting in this statement "Initially Portugal had little interest in Brazil, mainly because of high profits gained through commerce with Indochina. After 1530, the Portuguese Crown devised the Hereditary Captaincies system to effectively occupy its new colony, and later took direct control of the failed captaincies."
• Ref 10 is a journal article, correct? (JSTOR: Anglo-Portugese Trade) Format it as a journal article as originally published, not as a website with JSTOR as the publisher. ALL the JSTOR refs should be formatted as journal articles, since I'm assuming you read the whole article and not just the abstract.
• THis source http://www.casahistoria.net/Brazil.htm#Colonial_Brazil is just a collection of links.
• http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/history/lecture34/lec34.html This source would work better if it gave its sources, although it probably passes muster (looks like a online course lecture notes for a college course?)
• Current ref 15 "Reis, Jao Jose "Slave Rebelion in Brazil" is lacking a page number and publication date at the very least.
• Current ref 17 "Brazil's prized exports rely on ..." is lacking a last access date.

Okay, I'm only this far in and there are that many references problems. Please go through and give page numbers for all printed sources. Languages for all non-English sources. Get the JSTOR refs into journal form. Web sites need publisher and last access dates at the very very least. If those get fixed, I'll come back and look over the sources for reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Back in 2007 we didn't have any of the aforementioned problems with references. That was the last time I worked on the article. I think since then while many editors made several small improvements, some people have been inserting things indiscriminately (although in good faith). Hence all the new reference problems. Perhaps we can revert parts of the article to older versions in an attempt to save a bit of time? Sparks1979 (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose1a. Here are random issues just in the lead.

• Federative? No, translate it as "Federal".
• So religion is important enough to be worth privileging right at the top? I'd have thought the lifestyle and ideology of many Brazilians was very very uncatholic; gives the wrong impression to paint it as a profoundly religious culture of a particular European brand.
• Comma in 7,367 but not in the conversion?
• "While Brazil is one of the most populous nations in the world, population density drops dramatically as one moves inland."—"One" is two entirely different senses jars here. And the second one is a MOS breach.
• "There are currently 26 States and 5,564 Municipalities." Why is "currently" necessary? Is this particularly unstable?
• "One of the ten largest economies in the world"—so which is it: the second-largest? The tenth-largest?
• "with wide variations in development levels and mature manufacturing, mining and agriculture sectors"—with wide variations in mature manufacturing? Insert a comma as a boundary to stop this. It's still a heady mixture of notions in a single clause.
• "Technology and services also play an important role"—so technology plays no role in manufacturing, mining and agriculture? Category problem.

Careful, thorough copy-editing required by fresh eyes. TONY (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per Tony - fails 1a, poor prose. I am actually concerned about how well researched this article is. Only three of the 141 refs are books, the rest are online sources. I would think that for a subject as broad and important as Brazil, some serious research would have been conducted from reliable books. There are some good books listed under 'Further reading', but why haven't these been used as sources? — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 08:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [6].

[edit] Textual criticism

• previous FAC

Self-nom — I have worked on this article since the last nomination, using the comments made there last year to improve it and look forward to feedback to so that it can make it there this time. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments Some quick notes from a cursory glance:

• The See also section includes an awfully long list of people. Are there categories that would serve the purpose?

These are scholars that have worked/written on this particular subject. Most of them. if not all, are all in the Category:Textual criticism. Shall we remove them? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are only four people in Category:Textual criticism, and not many more in its subcat Category:Biblical criticism. When I clicked at random on people from See also, I found that most of them were in Category:Biblical scholars. I couldn't find relevant people cats for non-biblical textual criticism to go with it, but maybe you'll have better luck. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the long list of people. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to give this a thorough readthrough soon. Maralia (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've hidden my resolved issues above, and elaborated on one. As an aside, {{done}} and other graphical templates are discouraged at FAC - in bulk, they make the individual pages and especially the main WP:FAC page unbearably slow. Maralia (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have removed these. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Some short sections, and the one on "The Hebrew Bible" is a list: some expansion required. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanded "The Hebrew Bible" section. Would that be enough for this article? That subject requires a full article; I may start such article in the future. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The lack of in-line citations is a problem; there are many sections that are not referenced. There are too many long quotations that would benefit from précis and citation. The article loses direction in the middle becomes un-encyclopedic in tone and more like a treatise. The inclusion of a modern example would have been interesting, such as Joyce's Ulysses. I noticed some over-linking. I feel bad about being negative because I enjoyed reading most of the article, but it would benefit greatly from some bold editing to reduce the verbosity. GrahamColm^Talk 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/reference issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

• The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
• Short, stubby paragraphs throughout the Eclecticism section ruin readability/flow.
• Unnecessary bold text at start of Overview section, see WP:MOS.
• There's a huge list of verifiable books under 'References', but hardly any have been used as footnotes?
• The current citations are disorganized, please go through them for consistency.
• Serious lack of references, including many paragraphs throughout the article which are not referenced at all.
• Current ref 46 needs publisher/author info - but more importantly, what makes earlychristianwritings.com a verifiable source?
• Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 3 "tanselle 1989" I don't see such an entry in the references
• I think current ref 5 is missing a 9 at the end of the date?
• Typo in current ref 8 Harting? Should it be Hartin?

It's ref 14 now, still with a g?

• What makes http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html a reliable source?
• Current ref 13 Mulken & van Pieter, do you mean Van Reenen and van Mulken?
• Is it Rosemann or Roseman? Footnote says Roseman, references says Rosemann.
• Are the following refs actually used in the footnotes? If they aren't used, they need to go in the further reading section.
  • Gaskell?
  • Hodges
  • Love?
  • Maas?
  • Robinson?
  • sober?
  • Zeller?
• Actually, I see you're mixing citation styles, you're using parenthetical (Bowers, 1972 p. 86) with footnote. I believe it's supposed to be one or the other.

Links checked out. The sources seem okay, apart from issues noted above. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Refs in footnotes fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• General question

Thanks for the feedback. I can fix most of the smaller issues, re citations, footnotes, etc. But for copyedit I will need to engage other volunteers to come and lend a hand, as that is not my strength. My question is: should I de-list this FAC, or keep it going while fixing these issues? Look forward to your response. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment not sure whether to withdraw as yet. I have to work through it. Now let's get started...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Overview needs renaming. To me, overview means summary, which is what the lead is doing for the article anyway. Paras 1 and 2 of section are history, as is part of para 4. The rest is process and aim I guess.

In the lead - add one or two sentences to describe the three fundamental approaches for starters. I would be although fascinated I am a neophyte in the area.

Try to remove redundancy. See also material which is mentioned explicitly in text, remove. We can use CTRL-F keys these days.

OK. Will work on these next. Thanks for the feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Scanning through it, the prose is good in places, and this is the most difficult piece of the puzzle at FAC, so maybe give it a bit longer and see how it pans out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A copyeditor, User:Alastair Haines has expressed his interest in working on these aspects. This is great as this editor is knowledgeable on the subject. See User_talk:Jossi#Textual_criticism_2 ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - oops. Missed that it was already at FAC. See my comments at Talk:Textual criticism#Comments in passing. Wouldn't support for FA status yet (I don't know enough to know if this is truly comprehensive or not, so it is more a "not sure" on that account), but it did teach me quite a few things. I would like to see more balance away from the Biblical and Shakespearean side of things, though. Carcharoth (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, Only half way through, but first suggestion is maybe a more substantial lead. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment

• Please be consistent in references. You've got "# ^ Greg; 1950: 36" and then "# ^ Bowers 1972, p. 86". I recommend using the latter format.

Gary King (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed format of all inline citations to Author year, p.# (e.g. Bowers 1972, p.86) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks a lot better now. However, add a space after p. so it is "Ehrman 2005, p. 46". Also, merge references that are the same, such as "Bowers 1964, p.226" (it is used multiple times), using WP:REFNAME. Gary King (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Added space after p. ; will work on consolidating all dup refs soon. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This article has the potential to be quite fascinating, as it seems to map out mistranslations and misunderstandings in common knowledge. In short, the article is an example of what Wikipedia does (should do) in light speed. It's an abstract concept that should be illustrated concretely, and I found I was unable to follow some of it because I don't believe it is well-written. Of the things I wish I could read are:
• A cause and effect relationship in the lead that ties errors of translation to misunderstandings, with perhaps a concrete example.
• A brief explanation of the terms "eclecticism, stemmatics, and copy-text editing" in the lead.
• Before the history is discussed, I believe the reason for criticizing text it should be addressed.
• The Objective section should be written in paragraph form.
• There is so much jargon in the article that I am unable to follow it, particularly the Objective section. It won't do to obfuscate an already difficult topic deliberately. For each blue link, italicized, or "quoted term" that is a concept in Textual criticism, provide a brief explanation.
• The section on Eclecticism is choppy, and I'm not sure what it is explaining. I think you need several topic sentences to put your reader in a frame of mind of what to expect, why these areas of study are important, and what they mean for interpretation of concepts.
• Concrete examples of what scholars have found to be misprintings, omissions, misunderstandings, and mistranslations should be given frequently, and they should be well-cited.
• Citations are few and far between, particularly in the Stemmatics and Cladistics section. For such a topic as this, these claims need to be cited. I hope the fact tag in Internal evidence was put there by an FAC reviewer, and it didn't come to FAC that way.
• In the Application of textual criticism to biblical criticism there is a list of works that have gone through textual criticism, but nothing is compared. What are the differences between languages or translations, copies? What is the use of listing works that have had textual criticism applied without giving examples of what scholars have found?
• There is a list of findings, but is there an explanation of their importance? For instance, I read that Mary, mother of Jesus, is described in Hebrew text using a word that means both "virgin" and "young girl". Can you imagine what the impact of the translation of "young girl" would have been for women throughout history? At the very least, Madonna would be dancing on a street corner without that ammunition.
• These issues are prevalant throughout the article. I think if you work on it some more by providing cited concrete examples for these ideas, and rewriting some sections to flow better, you will have the basis for an FA. I wish you luck. --Moni3 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for you thorough review. The challenge is that this is an extraordinarily complex subject, and treating it in detail will require probably 6 or 7 articles. My intention was to provide an overview of the subject, and I can see that some of your suggestions could be applied to that effect. I guess, it will need the involvement of many editors, copy-editors, experts on the subject, as well as wikignomes to make this article reach the coveted FA status. I am concerned that some articles on pop-culture subjects are reaching FA status, while articles such as this one often get neglected... That is a challenge: to get articles on subjects such as this to attract enough eyeballs and attention to give it the treatment it deserves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're not just whistlin' Dixie there. Of the stunningly small percentage of editors who escort an article to FA, an even smaller percentage escort a classical topic such as yours. I have to admit that I am guilty of putting forth such a pop culture article as my last FA, but it was unavoidable. Obsession made me do it. As for the preparation of this one, you may have to split it apart, but I didn't really think the article required a substantial amount of content; not doubling it by any means. However, I think it needs almost basic This is the Term. This is a definition of the term. This is an example of the term. This is a nonexample of the term - type illustration. Just written a lot better than what I just did. You can always ask the FA Team for assistance. --Moni3 (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Moni3 for your feedback. I will give it some thoughts and see if I can rally a few editors to help in this effort. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 00:02, 5 June 2008 [7].

[edit] Ghosts I–IV

Self-nomination This article recently went through a very easy GA nomination and a more in-depth peer review, so I am confident in its quality and thoroughness. As always, any comments and suggestions are welcome and appreciated. Thanks! Drewcifer (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Not familiar with http://www.spinner.com/2008/03/25/potent-quotables-reznors-release-strategy/ this site, what makes it reliable?
• What makes http://www.popmatters.com/ a reliable source?

Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Pop Matters and Spinner.com are reliable since, based on the criteria of WP:RS, 3rd party sources have referenced/mentioned both sites (link/link/link). Drewcifer (talk) 12:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, that'll help with future FACs. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Drewcifer (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments That Release versions section resembles a shopping catalogue. The whole thing seems to be just unencyclopedic detail. How is the fact that the Two-Disc release "includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release" of any interest/importance to the lay reader? I think the whole section should be replaced by a sentence, "the album was released in many different formats such x, y and z." indopug (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest comparing this article to FA In Rainbows, which had a similar release and varying formats. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that such detail is useful to the lay person. For example, I'd say that the fact that the 2-Disc release includes a web key for immediate access to the digital release is actually quite remarkable: as far as I know, no album in history has ever been offered as a physical package AND as an included immediate high-quality digital download. In Rainbows included. And don't take it from me, a ton of 3rd party, reliable sources have also found this fact worthy of mentioning. And to respond to Wesley, I take it what you were pointing out from In Rainbows was that the release versions were explained via prose rather then list/tables? I'm not sure if such an approach would be the best here, since there's so many differing versions each slightly different content. Drewcifer (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I picked an awful example to prove my point. How does "If downloaded from the official site, it also includes a 40-page PDF and additional wallpapers, web banners, and icons." not resemble an advertisement? In any case, of these release modes were so revolutionary, why not discuss and analyse it critically? That'll be quite interesting and encyclopedic. indopug (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you on the web banners thing, took it out. As for your other suggestions, I agree with you in theory, but I'm afraid of going into OR-territory, as well as just repeating stuff that's already mentioned in the same section (what's in each release) and/or the second paragraph of the Critical reception section (what critics thought about the release methods). Drewcifer (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(Or in other words: critical analysis is already in the article (just in a different section, dedicated to Critical reponses, including their analysis to the distribution methods), and any other analysis (ie non-critical, ie coming from me), would be OR). Drewcifer (talk) 01:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - this page isn't nearly ready. The whole price list and features section is repeated twice, one as text, one as table. It's also self contradictory, starting by saying that "The album is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike license", then saying later that (surprise) it's only some tracks from Ghosts I. And with a lead-on like that, why isn't at least one representative song (or even a sample from it) listed as an .ogg image like one of the other music articles above? Worst, there is virtually no discussion of its significance. There are some immediate news articles yes, but no indication if the practice of differently pricing various grades was copied by others or what the results were. Sure, the article says the very top grade sold out, but it doesn't explain whether these were purchased by speculators or die-hard fans. It says the site clogged from downloads, but not whether the downloaders went on to buy the full album, whether marketing analysis was done (or by who) to determine whether sales were lost or gained by the practice, etc. There's no depth here. Wnt (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments. I'll try and address or respond to all of them. Unfortunately I don't agree with many of your comments, but hopefully we can come to some sort of agreement. So:

• I personally don't think I see a problem with saying the same thing twice, especially since the info is presented in two different manners. And, both ways are relatively small space-wise, so it's not like I'm wasting a ton of space repeating myself. That said, if you had your way, what would you suggest removing or changing? I'm definitely up for concrete suggestions.

Redundancy is a recurring problem I have seen in articles you have brought to FAC. If things are presented twice in two different formats, choose one format over the other, or a find a way to combine the two. This will make the article more concise and better-written. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, took it out. I guess I just like pretty tables and stuff. Drewcifer (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The table was pretty - it was just the duplication that was the problem. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's what I liked about, since it's summarized some points graphically. But hey, you can't win 'em all. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think you were confused by the CC thing. Which is probably a fault in the prose, but not in the way you're implying (a bait and switch). The whole album is CC-licensed, it's just Ghosts 1 that is free. There is a big difference. What exactly was it that lead you to believe otherwise? Perhaps the Creative Commons thing wasn't explained clearly enough?

I'm under the impression that any CC licensed thing can be freely peer shared. Am I wrong? Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. CC-licensed stuff can be freely shared (within the limits of the specific licenses), but that doesn't mean it's necessarily free from the original source. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean the band charges money but anyone could put it on their Web site? I'm confused. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what it means. It's definitely an a-typical business model, and kind of depends on good-faith, but it looks like Reznor made out alright for himself regardless. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• As far as including a song sample, I'm a little worried that you didn't actually read the whole article, since there is indeed a sample included in the article (in the Music section).

Sorry, I was unclear. That is a fair use sample from Ghosts IV, but so far as I understood not freely redistributable. But then again I'm not sure how Wikipedia regards the "noncommercial" restriction on the Ghosts I license anyway, so maybe it's not as clear a point. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's the non-commercial thing that forced me to use it under Fair-use. Wikipedia does not allow the free use of non-commercial CC stuff, so I had to treat it as fair-use (ie non-free). I've updated the image page with an additional template that hopefully clears this up. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• As for the significance of the release, again, I'm left wondering if you read the article in its entirety. The second paragraph of the Critical reception section discusses critical reception of the article in relation to its importance to the music industry as a whole. 5 separate critics are quoted, all of which in some way discuss the releases larger implications: artistically, business-wise, etc.

These all seemed to be forward looking predictions. The real problem is that there is no overall idea of the long term significance because you're pushing a freshly released album. What I was getting at is that I don't think you can have a stable, comprehensive view of an album that has just barely been released ... not until after it has been out a while. It'd be a pity if that diminished its financial value...Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

By criticizing the article for being too soon, you seem to be going down a few slippery slopes: 1) an article cannot be an FA until a designated time after the event/release/whatever since it may prove to be influential in some way, 2) the potential for the album to be influential necessitates the article to mention such influence in past-tense terms, and 3) if a potentially influential topic is yet to be influential, it is incomplete until it does so. The problem here is that you're judging the article based on the topic's potential 2/5/10 years down the line, which is bordering WP:CRYSTAL. Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, could the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 be featured? This product likewise is facing a popular vote. Wnt (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would argue that right now, the primaries article couldn't be featured because it's not finished yet. But once they are, (I suppose around the time of the Democratic convention), then yes, it could be featured, since the event has happened/is over. Any long-reaching effects of the primary (such as whether the Dems rework the primary system or whatever) should be included if and when these effects happen, but I don't believe you can fault the article for something that may or may not happen sometime in the future. The same goes for this article: the album was released (which means the event in question has happened), and it may be influential, but we really don't know until it is. Drewcifer (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• As for distinguishing between whether hard-core fans/speculators bought the Ultra edition, I'm not really sure how one would know that or find it out. Exit polls? Tracking down each customer? Besides, how does one define a "hard-core fan" versus a "speculator"? Does one have nose piercings and the other wears a tie? Obviously I'm being facetious, but it seems like a very vague undertaking. So, along those same lines, how would a newspaper/magazine/other reliable 3rd party source have any chance of finding that stuff out then publishing it? If this is an unreasonable expectation of the New York Times, surely it's an unreasonable expectation of the article?
• As for specifics about sales, marketing analysis, etc, that is entirely dependent upon whether sources with access to that information (ie pretty much just NIN and its management) decides to disclose such information. If they had/do, then great, that info should certainly be included at the risk of not being comprehensive. But assuming like 99.9% of every other album ever released, that info is not disclosed, then it's an unreasonable expectation to insist on it being included. I can't include information that is never made public. The fact that the album was released in an unorthodox/potentially groundbreaking manner does not change this fact. Drewcifer (talk) 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are many articles on Wikipedia that don't make it to featured status because enough is known about the topic, and I see this in the same position. Saying that "comprehensive" includes only what can be found out from crystal ball gazing and the company that owns the album because you're trying to feature the album two months after its release just doesn't seem like a compelling argument to me. Wnt (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying is that no album article will ever be comprehensive without some form of marketing analysis. Whether it's two months or two years after an album is released, 99.9% of albums released don't have such information released. So based on this assumption only an exceedingly few album articles will ever be FAs, and all other album articles are un-comprehensiveness because such data is never released. And again, the fact of how this particular album was released doesn't change this fact. It seems like a mistake to fault an article solely on the fact that it's missing information that is very very rarely released. And it also seems like a mistake to fault the article on it being too soon, with the assumption that such information might be released later. (WP:CRYSTAL) Drewcifer (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Oppose for now. The criticism section is very short and is about two different aspects; the music and the way the recording was released. The shallowness of the critical appraisal is a big worry. If this article were to appear on the Main Page as of now, it would seem at "best" promotional, at worst an advertisement. Can you not find more reliable critical reviews and balance this section? Lastly, why are Trent and others constantly stating rather than saying or writing? GrahamColm^Talk 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'm finding this one difficult to judge. It's well-written and interesting for sure, so I'm changing to neutral and I will follow the discussion here for now. Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 09:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Your point about "stating" is well-taken, I've tried to address it in the article. As for your other criticsm about the Critical reception section, I'm not sure if I completely follow you: do you think you could offer me some more specific suggestions? I've done my best to provide a wide range of critical opinion (positive, negative, about the music, about the release), and they're all from well-known, reliable sources (Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Rolling Stone, etc). I could add more, of course, but I'm afraid that that would just be more of the same. I can't imagine adding anything else that hasn't already been said in that section, but if you have some suggestions I'm certainly open to them. Drewcifer (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• "with an average rating of 64% based on ten reviews on Metacritic" - I wouldn't call that generally favourable... more mediocre. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 12:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's actually now 66% based on 11 reviews (I've updated the page). And "generally favorable" is what MetaCritic calls it. Check it out: link. Drewcifer (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's cool. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ref 4; WebCite?

It appears that ship has already sailed. I rearranged the citations to fix the problem, however. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies also commenting favorably on the unorthodox release of the album" - do without the "also" DONE
• "Much coverage of the album has compared Ghosts I–IV to the releases of Radiohead's In Rainbows as well as Saul Williams' The Inevitable Rise and Liberation of NiggyTardust!." - might want to say why (the way they were released, right?) DONE
• "that the band had completed its contractual obligations to the band's record label, Interscope Records," - "their" instead of "the band's"?

Reworded to "its", since "their" is a tricky word to use for a semi-psuedo-one-man-band. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• "to use or rework the material for any non-commercial purpose" - could this be said in lay man terms? Otherwise, it's obvious from the license title.

Changed "non-commercial" to "non-profit". Does that make it a little clearer? Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• May wish to say in the infobox that it was released online (under the release date)

I don't know, I'd rather not. A release is a release, especially in terms of the infobox. If this is a deal breaker I'll change it, but I'd prefer not to. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Should the Halo numbers in the Release versions section be in italics?

I don't think so. They're essentially catalog numbers, which as far as I know are usually written in normal typeface. Drewcifer (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In the first sentence of the lead it's in italics, that's why I ask. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was a mistake. 5 words in an there was something wrong! I fixed it to be unitalicized. Drewcifer (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• "The Washington Post stated "There's too much here. Yet it's the most interesting NIN in years." The Washington Post review" - bah, repetition... FIXED

dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I've addressed/commented on all of your concerns. Let me know if there's anything else. Drewcifer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Have fun and ... be creative" — The ellipsis do not appear in the reference.

The ellipsis bridges the gap of stuff I've taken out since it's not as relevant. The full quote is "Have fun and I’ll see you in a few hours.” And he said, “We could go the traditional drum route but be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you.”" Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at "just have fun and be creative". But still, use [...] instead of ... Gary King (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha. Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• "26) – US$5 to download" US$ already stated once before so no need to link again; just $5

Fixed. Drewcifer (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: What is the deal with those genres in the infobox? Can you make it more general? How about Industrial rock and Ambient? indopug (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at the talk page (or the talk page for the main Nine Inch Nails page), you'd see that NIN's genre(s) are a hotly debated topic. I can see about changing it if you really think it's necessary – and by see I mean bring it up on the talk page, since there's a note in the article saying any changes will be reverted unless discussing on the talk page – but I honeslty think it's an uphill battle. I myself am satisfied with the genre descriptions up there now. A little too specific I perhaps, but they get the point across. Drewcifer (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose, 1a and 1b. I stopped noting problems after getting bogged down in the lead, which indicates the need for a thorough copy-edit. Also, the article is not comprehensive. The information on composing and recording is much too light. Almost nothing about the tracks themselves. You'll have to move beyond Google and hit some indexes of print journals, newspapers, etc. Samples of prose problems (from the lead):

I expanded the recording section a bit, but I'm not really sure what else there is to say. The album was started and finished in a very short time span, so there isn't alot of history to catch the reader up on. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Opening two sentences mix tenses. Instead of "The album contains 36 instrumental tracks and was recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007." why not "Recorded in ten weeks of autumn 2007, the album ..."?

I reworded it, but not in the way you suggested. But I think it does work better now. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The team behind the project included ..." Why "included" if you list everyone? REWORDED
  • "The album was initially released digitally ..." Released "in a digital format" and released "digitally" mean two different things.

I agree in theory, but in practice I don't see how the two could possibly be mutually exclusive. You can't have a digital release in any other format other then digital. And the reverse is true, if it's released digitally, I can't imagine a scenario where it wouldn't be a digital format. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your comments? Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website, without any prior advertisement or promotion." What is the comma doing? I dunno, FIXED
  • "Via the official Nine Inch Nails YouTube profile, a user-generated "film festival" was announced, where fans were invited to visually interpret the album and post the results." Passive voice eliminates the subject. The final phrase is confusing... what does "visually interpret" mean? Look at the album and write about it? Also, "post the results" is confusing as the "results" of the film festival would really be the entire body of work produced.

Reworded slightly, hopefully to rectify the problems you've pointed out. Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• • "Critical reception of the album has generally been favorable, with many news agencies commenting ..." The "with ... (verb)" construction is poor grammar. --Laser brain (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, in part because I tried to think of a better way to word it, but am unable to find any better solutions. The sentence is most clear in my opinion using "with". Drewcifer (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Check out User:Tony1/Advanced editing exercises, exercise 2g. --Laser brain (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a paint-by-numebrs exercise to take you down a few pegs! Well, I changed the sentence a bit, given the valuable lessons I've learned from the exercise. Personally I think it's worse off because of the change, but it's one sentence, so I'm willing to let it go. Drewcifer (talk) 23:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 17:18, 4 June 2008 [8].

[edit] Cyclone Gamede

After passing a GA nomination and A-class review, I nominate this article for featured status, since I believe it passes all of the criteria. It has been copyedited and looked over a few times, and if anything was missed, I'll be happy to get it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Ooh! Australian sources! Whee!
• What makes http://australiasevereweather.com/cyclones/index.html a relaible source?
• Is Le Mauricien a newspaper? Where is it?

Otherwise links check out fine with the tool, sources look fine. I think this is the one I get to skip doing a full review on, right? I just reviewed Tropical Depression Ten... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re the Australia Severe Weather reference: it is a public mirror of mailing list posts by Gary Padgett, who is considered an authority in tropical cyclone studies worldwide. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yea, you can skip fully reviewing this one ;) I'm not sure if Le Mauricien is a newspaper, but it is a news agency, and here is their website. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lets be good kids and see some links showing he's well respected? That way I can put his site on my list of "all proven" sites and we won't have to request it again, when I see another cyclone article (which I know I will). I should have taken up storm articles, they definitely work up quicker than bishops! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a previous FAC, he is cited in various NOAA publications ([9][10]). If they are good enough for NOAA, they should be good enough for WP. Yea, TC's are easy to write about, since they don't usually cause conflict, but there's always a ton of info on them. The choice is yours whether or not to come to the dark side of WP. WPTC: disrupting FXC processes with endless successful candidates since 2006. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Works for me, on the source that is. TC's, I think I'll leave alone. I did enough worrying about them in 20 years in Houston, I am just as happy to get away from the coast! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• "Tropical Cyclone Hyacinthe" (in lead) no wlinks?
• "with the JTWC classifying it with winds" - what's JTWC?
• "upwelling; upwelling is the process..." - it'd read better if the word wasn't repeated
• "again underwent weakening" --> "again weakened"?

Generally a great read, couldn't find much. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 13:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I added the link to Hyacinthe, and fixed JTWC (I meant to add the acronym after its first usage). I changed the second upwelling to this, which avoids the redundancy. Fixed the redundancy with weakening. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Good prose, layout, fully referenced. However, I think you should de-link the dates if they do not include the year. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't believe I should change the dates. User preference will automatically change the date to the American or UK style of dating, so May 24 will show up for me as May 24, but for another as 24 May. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support with one comment. In the sentence, After being named, Gamede quickly intensified, with the JTWC classifying it with winds of 120 mph (75 km/h) early on February 22, per MoS, "with" is generally not a good connecting word. Otherwise, the prose is excellent. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Since I come from the French Wikipedia, I don't know whether or not I have the right to vote. By the way, I'd like to say that this nomination comes too early, by far. The article would be in a much longer and better state if only French sources had been used. Since Gamede stroke Réunion, there are many of them available on the Internet, and they should be dealt with. For the moment, the description of key events is kept within a sentence whereas it should be detailed in many paragraphs. I am thinking about the airbridge that had to be set up by the French army between Roland Garros Airport and Pierrefonds Airport. An unprecedented event in the history of France, it is unheard of in the current version. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't know French at all. I wouldn't know what to look for, and how to find it. If only French sources had been used, yes, it probably could be longer. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and I relied heavily on English sources (including a thorough check in a news archive via Lexis-Nexis). This article is comprehensive via English sources, but it's tricky, since the comprehensive criterion says nothing about foreign language sources, though obviously they are acceptable. For myself, this comment is unactionable, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed for you to add the important missing information (which I could integrate into the rest of the article). ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A reliable source is a reliable source. Le Monde is no different to the New York Times. For en.wp English sources are preferred, but if the French sources contain significant information that is not available in English ones, that information will have to come from those French language sources and the article would fail 1(b) without that info. The article should not use "only" French, but wanting information from French language sources (the airbridge reference is an example) is actionable - you cannot ignore sources in other languages just because you can't read them! Btw, search engines translation tools are typically "good enough" to determine if there is useful info in an webpage, even if someone would need to translate properly for use in an article.---Nilfanion (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose. You can have a look at www.temoignages.re and www.lexpress.mu for local sources with free articles. Yet, I doubt that you will be able to provide a comprehensive synthesis if you don't speak any French, as there are many subtles things that you should take care of in the process. For instance, if you want to fully understand the impact the cyclone had in national media in France, you have to take count of the chikungunya massive outbreak earlier in the region. And if you want to be precise, you'll need articles such as Rivière Saint-Étienne and so on. Thus, I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. I can deal with the first two steps if you want, but only after September. For the moment, I strongly oppose. Cyclone Gamede may be a Good article, but I definitely think it cannot be a featured one. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: Le Mauricien is a newspaper, indeed. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through some French sources (as well as the French article), and I don't see any significant pieces of information that is not covered in the article (I added a few pieces of info from a few sources I found). I disagree with I think the best way for this article to be featured would be to have your current version translated into French, completed by a French volunteer, then translated back to English. An FA on a topic outside of the English-speaking world can certainly be completed by an English writer. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but that is not what matters here. The debate is whether or not the article should be featured. And I think it should not, due to the failure to provide important pieces of information about how the authorities reacted to the cyclone, how they dealt with its aftermath, how the media covered the event and what was its social and political impact on the islands. For example, François Baroin and Pierre-Henry Maccioni are not spoken about. Consequently, the article is three to four times shorter than it should be, with the French version not being a standard either. Thierry Caro (talk) 12:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thierry Caro, Hurricanehink indicated that he searched through French sources and found no more than small facts. Thus, the article is comprehensive, and therefore meets the FA criterion. Also, the length of an article is not grounds for opposing. I honestly don't see how the article could be expanded three to four times its current size. Cheers, Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 13:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not prone to calling comprehensive an article about a cyclone that would ignore important facts the press has echoed and that would thus describe the meteorological event without dealing with its social impact. Ministerial visits and national media coverage are not details that can be bypassed. In a sense, I oppose the nomination because of the very criteria you refer to. Plus, I miss the contextualization that is often found elsewhere and that generally comes with well-written featured articles. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I suppose you are right. It wouldn't deserve to be featured if there is indeed that much information missing. I'm withdrawing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll archive; please leave the fac template on the page until the bot goes through, per WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 18:42, 2 June 2008 [11].

[edit] Vädersolstavlan

This is a GA, reviewed and discussed. I recently added a reference from 2007, so the article should be updated too.
Self-nominator Raven in Orbit (t | c) 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC) (aka Mats Halldin)

Comments

• What makes http://www.atoptics.co.uk/ a reliable source? Note I'm not saying it's necessarily not one, but I don't see anything that jumps at me and says it is.

Not reading Swedish, I can't evaluate the sources in Swedish. The link checker tool is showing one site with a soft 404 redirect. This one:http://www.sl.se/ErrorPage.htm. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments.

• atopics.co.uk is run by Les Cowley who has studied the halo in the painting. AFAIK, the site is one of the most widely used on-line references on atmospheric optics. (And that's not me suggesting I'm an expert from the field.)

• I've repaired the sl.se link. Apparently, they've updated the site lately.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 14:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Several uncited paragraphs, including but not limited to: "In 1523, as the newly elected King of Sweden", "The painting is used on a variety of merchandise""The painting shows a bridge stretching north", "Where the southern city gates were"
• "(left to right)[14]:" References go after punctuation
• Every time "Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan" is referenced, it needs page numbers.

There are more issues than these, though. Gary King (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, I must admit I do use references a bit randomly. I've lived my entire life in Stockholm and I avoid leaving it. Some things related to the city are so self-evident to me that I tend to think of them as not needing citations.

• I agree about the "elected king" claim needing a citation. I don't have one right now, but I'll try to produce one. And I just discovered I missed a citation for the "Like the islands, the ridges surrounding the city, ..." section. I didn't make this up; it comes from one of the sources already available in the article - I'll try to fix this.
• However, I can't see any reason to doubt the painting is depicting Stockholm looking east, so I can't see a need for adding references for sentences claiming various structures are facing/pointing in various cardinal directions.
• Stockholm really is littered with various products featuring the painting, so finding a citation for it seemed redundant to me. (Here is a link to a puzzle at the Stockholm City Museum.) I guess I could produce a photo from any museum shop in town.

It would still be WP:OR as we can't just "take your word for it". Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get your point, but finding a ref for this is like finding a ref confirming Mona Lisa is used for all sorts of honky-tonk. Would the example above be enough?
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "left to right" list comes from reference [14], so the citation is valid for the entire list. Maybe I should add a ref tag for every item in the list?

No, I mean ref goes after the colon (:) Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Rothlind's Vädersolstavlan i Storkyrkan article is 7 pages long. Why is there a need for more specific page numbers?

I wasn't aware. Fair enough. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd greatly appreciate if you could point out other similar problems in the article.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 19:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I was greatly helped by 4u1e with my shortcomings in English. As a non-native English speaker I feel I can but admire you people reworking the prose. Here below are my five pennies: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raven in Orbit (talk • contribs)

Prose issues:

• "Facing these challenges, the king saw conspiracies everywhere, sometimes correctly, and started to thoroughly fortify his capital." — The commas really feel like they are stopping the sentence a few times, as if you're in a car and the brakes are applied when you least suspect it. The wording also doesn't seem as professional as I would like. It can definitely be polished further.

I don't see the problem here. Please improve this sentence if you can.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "while the king, in contrast gave his unreserved support." → "while the king, in contrast, gave his unreserved support."?

Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, within a few years they started to pull in different directions." doesn't connect very well. Perhaps "Although the king and the reformer collaborated initially, they started to pull in different directions within a few years."?

Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• "The primary historical source describing the events following the celestial phenomenon is the minutes of the proceedings from the king's legal process against the reformers Olaus Petri and Laurentius Andreae in 1539–1540 as described by the clerk and historian Erik Jöransson Tegel in his chronicle of Gustav Vasa written in the early 17th century." Wow. Technically, I would say this is grammatically correct, but perhaps it can be bogged down less? It's just... really long and winding.

I broke it up into two sentences, let me know if this is not what you meant.
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. / Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Devil - one" convert to em dash, per WP:DASH (—)

Done
/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These were all found in the History section. Gary King (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These were just samples; there are several more issues in the text. I don't mean to be critical, but if I don't look for issues, then others will. I've also gone through the FAC process with my own articles and have received very similar criticism (just ask User:Tony1, User:Laser brain, or User:BuddingJournalist). Gary King (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand you are supposed to be critical -- a FAC process would of course be worthless if you weren't. No problems with me. It's the first time I'm attempting a FAC, so even if it fails I will learned a lot from it. BTW, I've added a lot more references and reworded various sections. Apparently I still got a lot to learn.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Avoid articles in section titles - "The church and the castle" can be changed to "church and castle"
• Possible weasel word - arguably. I don't have access to ref#1, but couldn't this be attributed to it?
• Found one contraction - isn't. There might be more.
• Footnotes should be located after punctuation. Most of them are, but there's at least a few that aren't.
• "However, a copy from 1636 by Jacob Heinrich Elbfas held in Storkyrkan in Stockholm, is believed to be an accurate copy and was until recently erroneously thought to be the restored original." - should there really be a comma?
• I'm not an expert on this, but between years (i.e. "1998–1999" in the lead) I'm fairly sure there should be an en dash, not a hyphen.
• "The painting was commissioned by the Swedish reformer Olaus Petri, and the resulting controversies between him and King Gustav Vasa and the historical context remained a well-kept secret for centuries." - awkward sentence, consider rephrasing.

Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those suggestions, Nousernamesleft.

I've now realised I need to rework various parts of the article and I'm in the middle of the process of reordering the entire reference section. Could I have this nomination postponed for a while? Is there a template or something for this? Sorry for stealing your time folks.

/ Raven in Orbit (t | c) 18:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've withdrawn this. Please see WP:FAC/ar and leave the {{fac}} template on the talk page until the bot adds it to articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [12].

[edit] The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

I wish to withdraw this FA nomination until further notice —Preceding unsigned comment added by EclipseSSD (talk • contribs) 18:51, 1 June 2008

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has reached at least Good Article status, and I believe it meets the criteria for FA, including relevant images, and has clear well-written layout, and reliable references. EclipseSSD (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. Good job, appears to be through.--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 2 "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre Overview" isn't the publisher Allmovies?
• What makes http://www.thevoiceofreason.com/ComedyMovieWatchPopcorn/TexasChainsawmassacre.htm a reliable source?
• Likewise http://www.houseofhorrors.com/gein.htm?
• And http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072271/trivia?
• You use http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/1021112-texas_chainsaw_massacre/ to cite "Steve Crum of Dispatch-Tribune Newspapers criticises it as "Cultish trash that set new low standards for brutality"" and "The film opened to a large amount of controversy, but despite this, it became a smash hit in the United States. The film is also considered an innovator of the genre, pre-dating Halloween (1978), Friday the 13th (1980), and A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984). It has received much praise from critics, mainly because its gritty and unsettling background that made it seem real." although I'm not sure I see how that source backs up the claims.
• I couldn't check the reliability of current ref 22 "The Texas Chainsaw Mssare Atari game" because the ISP I'm on while at a clients has it firewalled.

Links checked out okay. Sources seemed okay. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Ref 22 looks unreliable to me: http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0834/ is an independent site run by two guys. No sources given at that webpage. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment a good start. I enjoyed reading this but there is still some work to be done before the article will be ready to be featured. The writing needs to be sharper as shown in these examples:

• The house used for the film's location now suggests no indication there ever was a house there.

This should be something like: The location of the house used for the film now shows no signs of a house ever having stood there.

• Special effects were simple and likewise limited by the budget. - There is no need to say likewise here.

There are many other examples like this in an otherwise well written article. Please do not just fix these two. I suggest you ask someone new to the article to take a critical look. GrahamColm^Talk 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I think this article can be better. Much better. This is one of the most influential horror films, and by that designation, films in general, and the article doesn't go into detail about its cultural impact or enough explanation about the filming or production. You can find a wealth of information in print sources such as books and film journal articles about this movie. Search Film Indexes Online at a library (I just did) to find journal articles for this film (I found about 30 references). Use this book: Eaten alive at a chainsaw massacre: the films of Tobe Hooper, as well as others on the horror film genre. I've never seen this film and I know the article is not comprehensive. That's how pervasive the film is in culture. An entire section should be dedicated to the depiction of the graphic violence in the film. I suggest you de-list the article and work on it some more. Ask folks at WP:Films for assistance if you don't have access to the Film Indexes Online. --Moni3 (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'll take on board the feedback, and try to cleanup as requested. By the way, the graphic violence in the film is extremely minimal. Tobe Hooper went for the effect of actually scaring people, rather than over the top gore.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Usually, the Plot section of an article needs to be shortened. In this case, however, I think it should be a bit longer.
• "An estimated $83,532(USD) was raised." — The placement of "USD" seems odd; I don't think it follows WP:MOS.
• The list in "Release" should be converted to prose.
• Why is there one of those labels that appear when you hover over an image, in the "Tobe Hooper setting up a shot using an Eclair NPR 16mm." image?
• "Financing" might be better placed as a subsection under "Production", and perhaps the paragraphs in that section could also be organized better under subsections such as "Creation", "Filming", and "Cast"? Just some examples.
• You mention that the film grossed $30 million in the United States (and the fact that it is the most successful independent film) — twice. Is that necessary?
• "Critical reception" can be renamed to just "Reception".
• The amount of money that the film made should go in Release, I believe, while the amount of money the film cost to produce goes in Production.
• A space should be in "crowd.[6]The".
• "(1991).[7][6][8]" — Sort the references in ascending order.
• "about thirty miles southeast" — Use the {{convert}} template so that the length in kilometers is also shown.
• "August of 1973, under" — Years do not need to be linked unless they are significant to the understanding of the article.
• "House [5]." — References go after punctuation marks.
• "character. [6]" No spaces between punctuation and references.
• I would suggest replacing all IMDB references with something else, as it is generally considered unreliable.
• This tells me there are at least three paragraphs that are very short, and I agree with it because that's how the article looks like. There are a lot of paragraphs that are fairly short and could either be expanded on or merged with other paragraphs.
• Format the references; some say "Retrieved on" while others say "last accessed on"; be consistent and use the {{cite web}} template.

These are only some of the problems that this article faces. It will need a significant amount of work before it reaches FA status, but it is doable. Gary King (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Help

I can't do all of this on my own. At least I managed to make it to Good Article status.--EclipseSSD (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That is understandable. I would suggest withdrawing this FAC (by saying you wish to withdraw at the top of this FAC) unless you can find some other editors to help out. Gary King (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting this to Good Article is a fine achievement. It is very, very difficult for most editors to get an article to FA without help. The editors at WP:Films should help with this; as Gary said, "it is doable". Graham. GrahamColm^Talk 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

 :) Yep, I've been on both ends of the process now (having had 2 FAs and a few that I later withdrew, and now I am reviewing articles) so I understand very well the difficulties faced here. I would be glad to see the article back later on after it has improved. Gary King (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Graham and Gary. Do not be discouraged. If you love this film, it will not be difficult to work on this. Between the GA designation of To Kill a Mockingbird and its FA, it doubled in size. Be patient and tenacious. It will be very rewarding. --Moni3 (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, everybody. I'm actually proposing a Texas Chainsaw Massacre project which will help with stuff like this. You can find it here. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a task force or something, at WP:FILM, might be better and elicit more response. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:Roger Davies 19:18, 1 June 2008 [13].

[edit] Seth MacFarlane

Self-nom. I worked on this article for about six months. The article is a GA. All of the images are free use, so the fair use rule doesn't apply. I have fixed the dead external links. I am free to suggestions on improving this article for FA status. miranda 17:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen that this was a premature to nominate this as a featured article, because this is early in his career. Thus, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Thanks to those who took the time out to comment on the article. miranda 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• What makes the following sources reliable?
  • http://www.wargs.com/other/macfarlane.html a reliable source? Just as an FYI, it's generally considered not ethical for professional genealogists to publish any biographical data on living persons (like Seth's parents).

Not really. Genealogists published results of political/actors, recently. miranda 00:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://tv.yahoo.com/seth-macfarlane/contributor/663655/bio;_ylt=Aon954w635FJbS9IA6nuh_2.o9EF a reliable source?

Yahoo is a reliable source.

This is a biography of a person. I can't find it at the moment (duh!), but I seem to recall a discussion at the RS:N about how Yahoo's biographies of people were editable by anyone? Remember this is a BLP, we should be using the best possible sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean WP:N or WP:RS? miranda 23:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, which has an abbreviation I never can remember. Sorry about that! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous users or logged in users can't edit the yahoo article. The site publishes the content. The main content is here. I will find alternate sources. miranda 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're not dealing with an editable-by-anyone type article, yahoo's reliable enough to make it reliable. I could have misremembered!

• • http://frederatorblogs.com/?

Official blog of Frederator Studios miranda 00:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.mania.com/index.php?

Replaced with Yahoo.ca story

• • http://www.flakmag.com/about/about.html?

Flak Magazine - RS

I'll leave this one out for other reviewers to decide, since some folks have a more jaundiced eye about online magazines than I do. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.yankidank.com/?

Replaced with IGN source.

• • http://www.ypulse.com/

About page mentions that it is a source used by professionals. Mentioned in reliable magazines. miranda 00:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Will leave this one out for others to decide. I'm always a bit leery of pages from the site itself that say "So-and-so says we're great", not so much because I think they're lying, but you always wonder what got left out. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.stuffmagazine.com/index.aspx

Stuff (magazine) - RS

• • http://tvseriesfinale.com/

Insider magazine to Hollywood. Has cancellation of shows. I will contact the owner about the website's credentials, forward to OTRS, and place the results here. miranda 05:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://www.tvsquad.com/
  • http://www.awn.com/

Animation World Network - RS

So a trade organization for Animation professionals? Assuming that is so, I've struck this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• • http://io9.com/
  • http://www.newsmeat.com/

Newsmeat - reliable source. Has campaign contribution reports.

What makes it reliable? To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with Huffington Post link miranda 23:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Otherwise sources look good. Links checked out okay with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed your strike outs, at FAC it's usual to let the person making the comments strike out issues when they feel they are resolved. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comments I brought this up on the talk page, I'll bring it up again: how is where McFarlane was and what he was doing on September 11 important enough for a dedicated section? By the page's own admission, it didn't affect him that much. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see by the talk page, the section was much longer, and I had to cut it. The section is notable because interviewers ask him about his experience with September 11th. And his incidents from September 11th have influences on Family Guy. He uses September 11th in several episodes. Just because someone doesn't think an incident is important to their life, doesn't mean that incident should not be included with the article. miranda 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Lots of TV shows and movies have addressed September 11. The section currently says nothing about why his experiences are important to the reader understanding the subject (i.e., nothing about how 9/11 affected his work.) Without this, it's a section that shouldn't be included. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose — It is still very early in MacFarlane's career, and it is highly likely that this article will be expanded and altered as new shows, films, etc. are produced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC))
• Support This article looks great. Discount this if you want to, I do after all don't know much about FA, but judging from the readable paragraphs and the references I say it should be featured. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Use {{cite web}} for references so they are standardized. Several references, such as "Hooper, Barrett. "Winner’s one big loser: Not all ex-Daily Show correspondents make great sitcom stars". Now Toronto. Published March 8, 2007. Retrieved December 21, 2007.", has the publishing date formatted differently from "Finley, Adam. "Seth MacFarlane and Samm Levine in new short film - VIDEO", TV Squad, Webblogs (in partnership with AOL), June 30, 2007. Retrieved on January 5, 2008. "
• Somewhat of a minor issue, but in "wrote a short titled", "short" is the noun and not the adjective that most people associate it with. Perhaps reword to short subject (and link) or explain it? I had to double-back on that one.
• "intellectual dog Steve" → "intellectual dog named Steve" might be better
• "characters called Family Guy." I don't think the characters were called Family Guy; a comma might be better here.

These are only a small sample of the issues. Gary King (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawal of this nomination was probably a wise decision (I say probably because it isn't too far off, with a bit of work) but to withdraw because it is "early in his career"? I don't think that should prevent this from being FA. Gary King (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I withdrew it because there aren't enough sources online. And, since he reached a new deal with Fox after the strike, it's kind of early in his career. IMHO. miranda 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough; but personally, I would not consider an article to be "too early" for FAC, unless there is a set date for when it would not be "too early" anymore. Examples include sports championships, where their articles would be stable after they ended, film releases, etc. Gary King (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 16:32, 1 June 2008 [14].

[edit] Lo-Ji Sales, Inc. v. New York

I hereby christen this article a featured article (candidate). It showcases brilliant writing legal and is sourced, good format, images, etc. JeanLatore (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose
  • Completely uncited, I can't see one citation.
  • Lead does not meet WP:LEAD
  • No references whatsoever.
  • Please consider re-reading the featured article criteria once more. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 00:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per Milk's Favorite Cookie. Your perennial nomination of articles that do not meet the FA criteria is getting annoying. Please familiarize yourself with the FA criteria before nominating in the future. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Previous noms by JeanLatore:

1. Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Beavis_and_Butt-head/archive1 and talk page note.
2. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strap-on dildo/archive1 and talk page note.

I am traveling and on a bad connection; will leave the talk page notes to others. See also: User:SandyGeorgia/Glitter SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Sandy Georgia. see her unhelpful commentary at my talk page referenced to my queries her talk page. Folks, I think we've been had! JeanLatore (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose No references? Gary King (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Premature FAC nom. One online source is provided, but nothing else and no footnotes. Please withdraw it, JeanLatore. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose No in-line citations, one primary source, clearly not even B class.--Grahame (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support It's a Supreme Court case, and those are very informative. Angie Y. (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose of course. I'm finding it difficult to assume good faith. The nominator has been extremely rude to User:SandyGeorgia on her Talk page and this is the third completely unprepared article nominated by this person, despite the clear explanations of the process that have been offered. Please withdraw the nomination and follow the peer-review and Good Article route. GrahamColm^Talk 17:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, someone plz. help me do a "peer review" of this article ASAP. JeanLatore (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [15].

[edit] 4 Vesta

Nominator: I'm nominating this article for featured article because it is well-written and does a very good job of explaining the science of Vesta (plus, aesthetically I think it's well-formatted and just nice to look at and this just makes it more fun to read). --IdLoveOne (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 9 is lacking a publisher, and also it dead links for me.
• Current ref 13 "evolution of Vesta" is lacking publisher and last access date
• Current ref 14 is just a bald link. Needs to be formatted with a title, etc. but at the moment, it's a dead link (with tag on it saying so too, I might add)
• Current ref 21 Greg Bryant "Sky & Telelscope ..." is lacking a publisher and other bibliographic data
• Current ref 23 is lacking publisher, and last access date. Also, what makes this a reliable site? Looks like a homepage.mac page to me.
• See also sections usually go before the notes
• http://www.rasnz.org.nz/MinorP/Vesta.htm deadlinked by the link checker tool

Sources look good. Other links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment—This article is going to need a significant re-write in about two years when the Dawn spacecraft arrives.—RJH (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Prose/reference/layout issues need addressing before I can consider supporting this:

• Short, stubby paragraphs/sections ruin the flow and readability.
• The lead needs expanding to fully summarize the article as per WP:LEAD.
• Lists should be converted to prose to improve readability/flow.
• The pictures push the layout around (especially the last one, which obscures the 2 column references list.)
• Orbital characteristics in the Infobox are not sourced.
• No reference for "Vesta was discovered by the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers on March 29, 1807."
• No reference for "After the discovery of Vesta in 1807, no further asteroids were discovered for 38 years"
• No reference for "Vesta is the only known intact asteroid that has been resurfaced in this manner. However, the presence of iron meteorites and achondritic meteorite classes without identified parent bodies indicates that there once were other differentiated planetesimals with igneous histories, which have since been shattered by impacts."
• What makes http://homepage.mac.com/andjames/PageVesta000.htm reliable? It's a .Mac homepage (personal website).
• Current ref 2 needs access date.
• Current ref 5 needs access date.
• Current ref 11 needs access date.
• Current ref 13 needs publisher/author/access date information.
• Please see User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a for addressing prose issues, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_League_of_Copyeditors/Members and Wikipedia:Peer_review/volunteers#General_copyediting for lists of copyeditors who can help you.

— Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 09:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. This interesting article needs copy-editing. The prose if often non-encyclopedic, ("thanks to" for example,) and stubby. There's much to be done for it to be of FA standard. I concur with the advice given above by Wackymacs. GrahamColm^Talk 12:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: There's a lot of work to be done on this article, I think. Some basic things like the length of the introductory paragraph: the LEAD should summarize the important parts of the rest of the article. There is no way the four sentences currently in the lead of this article summarize the main points of this article. I note things like the Dawn mission sometimes appear in italics and sometimes do not. This needs to be standardized (one way or the other). This article is only about half the length of Featured Article 1 Ceres, leading me to believe that it's not comprehensive, although I realize comparing the two articles isn't an exact science. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: How much time left to fix these issues? --IdLoveOne (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The rough plan here is that nominees may have issues which take up to seven days to fix, or more if steady progress is noted. It is possible to recover from this point if you have alot of free time and some handy reference books or journals but may be a tough call. It is no drama if you withdraw now and a few astronomical folks help out for a few weeks to give it a good spit'n'boot polish and renominate then. There'd be some who'd help. Either way is cool. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: I also agree the article needs some work. Happy to help, but needs comprehensiveness issues addressed before copyediting Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - simply not ready. For the wealth of information available on Vesta, this article is simply insufficient. A quick ADS search gives 1156 hits for Vesta [16] Google books give 671 books mentioning it [17]. Substantial expansion is needed before this can be considered featured. WilyD 16:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Nominator Comment: I'm a bit disappointed to see no one's taken the initiative to revise the article. Well, I'm the nominator so I guess the responsibility goes naturally to me. Give me until tomorrow afternoon (USA) to make some revisions. And yes, I agree with the above mentioned objections and they seem fair. --IdLoveOne (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't come to FAC to get your article improved. Naturally that happens in the process if your article is not good enough. If you're seeking more editor help I suggest a peer review. Since the article needs serious expansion, this is something more suited to one with interest in the subject. Clearly, the people here (including me) are those who would do small edits such as minor copyediting. At the end of the day though, everyone has their own projects going on (and real life), so not everyone has the time. There are lists of copyeditors who can help you at both Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors/Members, but I only recommend a copyedit once you're finished expanding - as WilyD explained there are a vast number of sources out there you can use. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 06:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [18].

[edit] Water supply and sanitation in Colombia

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfills the criteria for a featured acrticle.--Mschiffler (talk) 04:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Current ref 9 "Rojas, Leila, Vice Minister of Drinking Water and Sanitation"... is this a published source? I don't see a publisher for it, or any other bibliographical information that would enable folks to verify it, per WP:V
• Current ref 32, "Garcia Carreno Jose Noe ... is this a published source? It's lacking all bibliographical information to enable others to verify the information, per WP:V
• Same for current ref 33 "Guzman Hoyos ...
• Current ref 43 (Columbian peso data from 2008) has a bald link for the source
• Current ref 39 Columbian peso data from 2004 is lacking a source

I don't read Spanish, so I couldn't evaluate the Spanish language sources. The links seem to work according to the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

• Considering the article's current size and depth, I'd say the lead needs significant expansion. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support: I love it --Well Hater (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Hater (talk · contribs) is blocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The lead section is way too short. Check out the guideline at Wikipedia:Lead section.-Wafulz (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the lead should be easy - we did have a longer lead section in an earlier version and a peer reviewer suggested to shorten it. What is more difficult to address is the information that is not based on published sources. I am not sure if I'd like to take this out if that's needed to make it a featured article, or if I'd rather keep it as a GA and keep the information in.--Mschiffler (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What information is this? Even a Good Article isn't supposed to have that in it.-Wafulz (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The lead is too short and many of the sources are in Spanish, please see:Wikipedia:V#Non-English_sources. GrahamColm^Talk 09:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem to me that "assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality" is the operative sentence. But I don't see any reason to assume that there's extensive English-language sources that could be used instead. In order to combat systemic bias, we do have to allow foreign-language sources unless English sources are available. Unless we have evidence that extensive English-language sources exist discussing the water supply of Colombia (this seems unlikely to me), then the article is actually okay in this regard. --JayHenry (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is an interesting topic, and I wish it was ready for FA, but I agree with the others who have stated the lead is too short. There are external citations throughout the article and breaches of MoS, 1-sentence paragraphs, and quite a few places without any citations. Bummer. --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

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 User:SandyGeorgia 05:02, 1 June 2008 [19].

[edit] History of Indiana

Nominator. I'm nominating this article for featured article because...

Mingusboodle and myself have been working on it for several weeks and I believe it is ready now. Charles Edward 16:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A few of the references are pretty bare. Is it possible to include author and/or publisher on the internet sources? Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've went through all the references and included publishers, authors, and titles as they are available on the pages referenced. Many links are to IN.gov where no author information is provided, all info there is the work of the Indiana Historical Bureau and I have listed it as the author. Charles Edward 17:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm still seeing quite a few refs with just the title and "Retrieved on...". Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

looks my changes were lost in an edit conflict.. I will make the changes again. Charles Edward 19:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the refs again, and this time it saved. :) Please note that many of the refs point to IN.gov and the author is the Indiana Historical Bureau or another state agency. Also note that the refs who's publisher is stated as the Indian Center for History are on a site hosted by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, which is separate from the Indiana Historical Society, which other refs point too. Many have no "author" listed on the pages but are just general informational type pages. (if there is something more that can be done to these refs to improve them please let me know) Charles Edward 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Looks very good, but I would recommend someone go through and check for grammatical errors. I found four such issues in the lead alone. Small, nitpicky things though. Definitely is a high quality article. Resolute 18:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Websites still need publisher and last access date information on the references. I'm seeing quite a number of them missing publisher and/or last access date. When that's taken care of, I'll be glad to come back and double check the reliablitliy of sources and links.Ealdgyth - Talk 19:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: I think it's on it's way, but I have a few concerns. Pronoun usage is a major issue. Please check all pronouns (he, she, it, they, their...)

• The region was largely deserted until the Ohio River Valley became thickly settled by the Mississippian culture from about 1100 AD - 1450 AD. - how do we know it was "largely deserted". Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I've changed the wording, hopefully that will address this concern. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Their settlements where known for their ceremonial burial mounds, many of which are still visible. - wrong use of where (should be were), and the pronoun their has no antecedent.

"Their" points to "the Mississippians". I've addressed that also. Charles Edward 22:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• For unknown reasons they disappeared in the mid fifteenth century, about two hundred years before the Europeans first reached the region. again, no antecedent for they, and it isn't clear why this should be compared to the arrival of Europeans.

I would argue for leaving that. Point 1- European movement into the region is the next section and this provides context for that 2. This makes is clear that the disapeared for "unknown reasons" is unknown because no Europeans where there to document it. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The entire "Early civilizations" section seems very under-developed. Presumably, the data that exists comes from archaeological digs, which typically bring up pieces of pottery and other elements of daily life that can be expounded upon here.

To my knowledge, praticly nothing of much significance is known about the Mississippians or the Hopewells other than a few things about their settlements.(you can find this if you look at their wikipedia articles) Which would be another good point for leaving in the line about no contact with Europeans as an explanation to this lack of evidence. However I would like to expand that section where more information on it available. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Indiana held a very important post during the colonial period. - this sentence could be removed entirely, with only a few tweaks to the rest of that section to make it flow better.

I've removed that sentence. The next two sentences do seem to provide ample context. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• No permanent settlements were established in Indiana during most of the colonial rule, but control of the territory - although inhabited by Native Americans - was contested at various points by the European colonial powers - during most of the colonial rule is improper grammar. It also seems unlikely to me that Native Americans did not establish a single permanent settlement between 1673 and 1783 - if a source says that, please make it explicit which source it is.

The natives did have settlemts, at least 20 or so that i have read of. But these were not "permanent" as the natives were nomadic and moved between different parts of the state. The sentance is meant to refer to European settlements anyway. That is clarified and the sentence rewrote. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• came to the area eventually known as Indiana in 1679, claiming it for the King Louis the XIV of France. The area was further explored - repetition of the area

reworrded the sentance, sounds better now i think Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• from migrating too close to British influence - "migrate" in this sense requires an indirect object (e.g. it should be from migrating to a position perceived as too close to British influence, but that's a bad wording too - change the whole sentence instead)

changed to "moving to close the British sphere of influence". Might still need work Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Other forts and outposts where established - wrong use of where, should be were

fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• These forts where manned - wrong use of where, should be were

fixed it Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Many of the Jesuits conducted missionary works in the area they inhabited in an attempt to convert the local natives to Christianity - needlessly wordy

revised sentence Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the missionaries even went to far as to live among the natives and accompany them on their hunts and migrations. They would perform infant baptisms and preach regularly to the tribes. - vague pronouns - remember, pronouns should refer to the closest previous noun or pronoun that agrees in number and gender

revised sentences Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• he first war to affect the region was the King William's War in 1689 which saw some minor raiding by the native tribes - not to be pedantic, but it's highly unlikely that there was never a war in Indiana before 1689. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Also, it isn't clear what King William's War is, or why there was raiding.

I am not clear how to change this sentence without going into a sizable addition. While there may have been wars in the region before there are none recorded, so I see no need to speculate. To say why there was only raiding would require a broader explanation of the entire war which was european in nature. And as previously stated the natives where allied to the french and there were no european establishments, so there has been established for which to attack within the state, so the raiding is external and not really relevant to the article other than the fact that natives left the state to raid. I made a small change, hopefully that is enough Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• The second, Queen Anne's War from 1740 to 1748. not a complete sentence

noticed that earlier but forgot to fix. fixed now Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• French convinced many of its Native American tribes - vague pronoun

changed to "convinced many of the regions native american tribes" Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• French control of Canada which would lead to its fall to Britain - vague pronoun

changed "its" to "Canada's". Not sure if that is proper either though Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• During the Seven Years War (known as the French and Indian War in the Americas) the British challenged - this is an article about the Americas, right? Shouldn't we be using that term?

But at this point in the article the state is being discussed in the context of being a european possesion. I have no problem to change that, but a second opinion would be useful. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess if that's the standard for historical articles I don't really care either. But wasn't all of North America a European possession at the time? Tuf-Kat (talk)

• the Native Americans largely support the French - wrong tense

changed to supported Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• In the beginning the tribes sent large bands of warriors to support the French in resisting the British advance and counter-raiding - this is a recurrent problem in this article - you can't say something like "the British advance and counter-raiding" unless you're confident the reader knows what advance and counter-raiding you're referring to. It would be more proper to change it to "an advance and subsequent counter-raiding by the British" (see Article (grammar) on definite and indefinite articles; only use a definite article if it is clear which member of a set is being referred to). Furthermore, "counter-raiding" can't really be used if it isn't explained what they were countering - the implication is that the Native Americans raided the Brits, and the Brits counter-raided the French, but I'm not sure if that's what's meant.

I have reworded this to sound better. But again, this war has it's own article and would be very lengthy to go into detail as to why they did everything they did. Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• westward but eventually where able to overcome the native resistance, after the fall of Montreal and where no longer able to support the hinterland - another major recurrent problem. Please look at every instance of where to see if it should be were.

fixed Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

• Great Britain began her influence on Indiana in 1760 - earlier France was referred to as "it" (the French convinced many of its Native American tribes - though now that I look more closely, that's mixed up with another pronoun misuse), whereas GB is referred to as "her" here. I think either one is considered acceptable (I prefer "it") but be consistent.

In that instance was changed to "the region's". Charles Edward 22:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

These are only the issues I found on a casual glance up to the very beginning of the "Great Britain" section. This needs a thorough copyedit to be read for FAC. Tuf-Kat (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

These tribes where significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes where nomadic, returned to the use of stone tools - there are still these two misused wheres. Also, the second sentence is improperly constructed (the comma after "nomadic" introduces a list, each item of which is grammatically optional: "The new tribes were returned to the use of..." is not sensical). I still think this needs a thorough copyedit. There remain improper usage of definite articles (The control of the territory was contested at several times by the European colonial powers., the British challenged the French control in the region yet again), and generally sloppy writing (there was no official attempted to form permanent settlements, Gabriel Marest was one such priest, teaching among in Kaskaskia as early as 1712.). I don't see any additional vague pronouns, but I don't have time to look too thoroughly (and I haven't actually checked that my specific concerns listed above have been satisfied - I think so, but don't quote me on that yet - the relevant sections do seem much improved). Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've went through the article completely and did a major copy edit. The sections seem to flow together much better to me now. I've also removed alot of the pronoun usage replacing them with nouns and proper nouns wherever it seemed appropriate. I've also reordered some of the paragraphs and sentences to best convey the thoughts in a coherent way. And i've tried to clarify as many vague points as possible, even removing some minor content. If you should have a chance please check through the article again and let me know if it is at all improved in your opinion. Thanks Charles Edward 18:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Let me first say that I am no expert on wiki rules, so please correct if my assumptions are incorrect. i am only interested in writing a good clean article. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/index.html this site. it gives its sources, but they are all tertiary sources, it looks like. Facts on File and Encyclopedia Britanica. Also, they are older sources, perhaps something more recent?
  • I've replaced this with a ref to a newer book i found.
• What makes http://www.mississippian-artifacts.com/ a reliable source?
  • this website has a NSTA award and the author is professor at Kansas state University. Does that not count? Plus it has some good pictures and alot of content. I've went ahead and replaced it with another ref I found. Charles Edward 17:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 31 "The Indian Historian - Indiana Territory" is lacking a publisher
  • fixed
• This statement "These nations would be participants in the Sixty Years' War, a struggle between Native Nations and White Nations for control of the Great Lakes region. These tribes were significantly less advanced than the Mississippian culture that preceded them. The new tribes were nomadic and returned to the use of stone tools and did not follow the large scale construction and agrarian ways of their predecessors." is sourced to a book published in 1892. Scholarship has advanced quite a bit since then, surely we have something more recent about the Mississippians?
  • I found a newer another book saying the same thing. (but it the older book seems to be more informative to me)
• There are sources listed in the notes in a short form that aren't in the references section.
  • Current ref 28 Judge Law The colonial history of Vincenens which is lacking all bibligraphic information past that.
    • expanded
  • Current ref 32 Matilda Gresham Life of Walter Quintin Gresham
    • expanded
  • current ref 44 "By Julia Henderson Levering Historic Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that.
    • expanded

Still missing publisher. ALL book references need at the least: Title, publisher, and page number. Author, year of publication etc. should be given also, but there are rare cases where sometimes that's not always available. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • added Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Current ref 47 Dewitt C. An Illustrated History of the State of Indiana which is lacking all bibliographic information past that. Later it is used as current ref 55 with fuller information, I think. There though, it's lacking a page number.
    • fixed - pausing here, seems someone has screwed up the reflist template...

Second usage is still lacking page numbers. They are needed for WP:V Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Current ref 62 Miller Harold Economic Geography is lacking all bibliographic information
    • expanded
• You reuse William M. Fowler Empires at War quite a lot, perhaps move it to the References section and do the footnotes in short form? Also, ISBN seems to be incorrect, is it this book: Google Books link
  • done
• Current ref 14 is to the Encyclopedia Americana, but that's an encyclopedia like Wikipedia, it is a bit odd for an encyclopedia to be using another encyclopedia for references. Also it's lacking a publisher and publication date and other bibligraphical data.
  • I'm not clear, do you suggest replacing it with a better reference or expanding the info on the existing one?

Id suggest replacing it, but if you are adamant that it must stay in, it needs the other information. Really suggest replacing it though. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • i've replaced it with a ref to barnhart which gives the same information on the topic. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 29 Dowd, Gregory Evans A spirited resistance is lacking publisher and any other bibliographic information and page number

fixed

• current ref 30 Arville L. Funk A Sketchbook of Indiana History is lacking an ISBN and page number, and you use this reference again, so shouldn't it go in the references section? Also several of its later uses lack page numbers.
  • my copy of the book does not have an ISBN number, and I cant locate one online either. It was published in 1963, did they do that then? Pages numbers are added, and it is converted to short reference. =But, fyi, i used two books by thus same author, I don't want to cause confusion so i left one as a long reference.

To do the one author with different books thing you can go two ways... you can differentiate them by Author (year of publication) or Author Title. I generally go Author Title but that's a personal preference. Just pick one and stick to the style, it's perfectly okay to have more than one work by an author and still use the short references system. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current ref 35 Cleaves, Freeman Old Tippecanoe is lacking a page nubmer
  • fixed
• You reuse William Wesley Woolen Biographicl and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana a number of times, probably should put it in the references section. Also, this book was originally published in 1883, perhaps you should mention that in the bibliography, that's it is a reprint of a 1883 edition.
  • done
• Current ref 50 "Indiana Historiacl Bureau The State House story' is lacking a last access date
  • template was formated wrong, fixed

Still has no last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • template was still formatted wrong... It is fixed now.
• What makes http://www.potawatomi-tda.org/ a reliable source?
  • The site is maintained by a member of the Indiana Historical Society and the information containted in it is from their publications, and it's the best online reference I've come across. I have replace it anyway with a ref from Funk 45-47
• Current ref 60 Emma Thornbrough Indian in the Civil War Era is lacking a page number
  • fixed
• What makes http://historic.shcsc.k12.in.us/CivilWar/BATTLE.HTM a reliable source?
  • The site is hosted by the public school of Corydon, the city where the battle occured. The site is used as a public school teaching recourse.

Yes, but it doesn't give its sources nor is a public school going to be well known in the history field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • that is true, I've replaced it with another ref. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• You reuse Ralph D. Gray Indiana History A book of readings, perhaps it should go in the references section?
  • done
• What makes http://www.bsu.edu/ourlandourlit/Regions/EC.html a reliable source? It says at the bottome "Our Land Our lIterature is an electonric exploration of Indiana's enviromental literature created by student scholars at the Virginia B. Ball Center for Creative Inquiry in Muncie Indiana."
  • it is published by student scholars at a reputable Indiana university.

Yes, but the key part here is "student scholars". For self published information, we want to satisfy WP:SPS which requires that the writers be noted in their field. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I've replaced the ref with two different ones that, combined, bear out the facts of paragraph. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 69 Milestones in Medical Research is lacking last access date.
  • done Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Still missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • template formatting problem, fixed
• Current ref 71 McMakin Dean Musical Instrumetn Manufacturing in Elkhart Indiana is lacking bibliographic data past that.
  • I am unable to locate this book or any additional information on it, perhaps someone else can? I will search for a ref to replace it.
  • I've found a another source to replace it with. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 72 is lacking last access date.
  • fixed
• This statement "During the postwar era Indiana became a critical swing state that would often decide which party would control the Presidency. The parties each vied for Hoosier support and included a Hoosier on almost every presidential ticket in the three decades following the Civil War." is referenced to this site, which however only covers 1888. Need better sourcing for this statement.
  • added additional ref to gray, page 171-172 which covers the same topic.
• Current ref 83 "Idnaian Center for History " is lacking a publisher
  • fixed
• This is a marginal source http://www.nga.org/portal/site/nga/menuitem.29fab9fb4add37305ddcbeeb501010a0/?vgnextoid=44dc224971c81010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD&vgnextchannel=e449a0ca9e3f1010VgnVCM1000001a01010aRCRD, it would be nice to see it replaced with a better one.
  • i've supplied an additional ref to supplement it, but I do not find it as informative as the previous one so I have left it. The ref does site a biographical book as it's reference, however I do not have access to that book - would it be alright to add that book the reference instead?

If you don't have access to the book, you shouldn't cite the book. Only cite sources you've actually accessed. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• • OK, I found another source that confirms the info in the article published by the County History Preservation Society of Indiana. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 85 "Indiana History Chapter Nine" is lacking a publisher
  • fixed
• Current ref 86 Jack Keenan "The Fight for survival ..." is lacking a last access date
  • fixed
• This statement "The 1973 oil crisis created a recession that significantly hurt the automotive industry in Indiana. Companies such as Delco Electronics and Delphi began a long series of downsizing that contributed to high unemployment rates in manufacturing cities like Anderson, Muncie, and Kokomo. The trend would continue until the 1980s when the national and state economy began to recover. Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry." is sourced to this http://www.wsws.org/workers/1998/july1998/jiml-j02.shtml which is an interview with a retired autoworker. One interview with a retired autoworker isn't enough for the sweeping statements made in the article.
  • a ref has been added to the US labor department report about the rise and fall of auto industry in the midwest during the 1970s-1980s. Wording of the section may need changed slightly to more properly reflect the new reference, I will look that over.
  • I've went through and removed the part that is not supported by the new ref. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 27 just says "English" what is that?
  • fixed
• Current ref 96 Corporate Tax History http://www.in.gov/dor/taxtypes/corp-history.html deadlinks for me.
  • The pages has been moved and replaced with a new page with far less content[20]. I don't think there is enough information there now to support the statement in the article, but I have went ahead and replaced the link. Another ref will need to be found or that statement should probably be removed.
  • i've been unable to locate another source to properly reference that statement, So i have removed the statement. It can be re-added when another source is found. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• It's not wrong, but very odd formatting to see the last names of the authors of the notes given in short form be italicised.
  • that is due to using the cite book template for all the refs, I will correct that.
• Please change all your references that give the author name in First last form to last name first, as that is the format you seem to use most
  • done

Links all checked out fine with the link checking tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be glad to work through this list this afternoon. Charles Edward 15:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Comments from Ealdgyth - Talk 01:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Current refs 57 and 59 are to Funk, Arville Hoosiers in the Civil War, but neither give their page numbers.
  • done Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Current ref 87 Indiana History Chapter Nine is lacking a publisher
  • template was formatted wrong, fixed Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
• Do you actually use the "Indiana" the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia ref? If not, delete it.
  • it doesn't appear to be used, I have removed it.

I'm going to suggest you read up on the use of the name function in the <ref> tags. If you go something like <ref name=TAG>(bibliographical info)</ref> for the first usage of a web page or a page (or pages) from a book (with the same page numbers) then every other time you use that same site or set of book pages, you can just go <ref name=TAG/> which simplifies things greatly, AND combines all the refs that are the same together so that it's easier to read the refs.

I will look into that, I've seen it done on other articles. To be honest when I began working on this article I never expected to become so lengthy and didn't consider that I would end up with nearly one hundred references.

I also took the liberty of formatting a few easy ref changes, and alphabetizing your references.

Thank you!

Lastly, I don't see any explanation of the origin of the nickname "Hoosiers"?

I didn't add an explanation mainly because no one really knows where it came from. There are four or five very different theories but the only thing definite is became common sometime between 1820-1830, which is mentioned in the "Early development" section. And too add one theory I would have to add the others to be fair which would make what I consider an already very long article even longer.

Heh. COI, my family is one of the ones that is supposed to have orginated the term. Actually a way back great-uncle, but... family nevertheless. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The Northern Indiana Historical Bureau has a good webpage that explains the different theories, so I could add that information to the article if you think it would be useful. Charles Edward 22:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to run through the remaining items tomorrow. Thanks for your your thorough review of the article! Charles Edward 02:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose based primarily on prose, although there are some MOS issues and a few areas that need to be a bit better cited. For each of the main prose issues, I've given one example; the issues are not confined to just those examples, though.
  • Prose issues
    • Many long unwieldy sentences (example "the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s." could be rewritten as "Explorers claimed the area for France during the 1670s.")

I've tried to go through and cut all this out, but I am not great with prose. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • issues with clauses matching (example " These tribes succeeded one another in dominance until the region entered recorded history when the first Europeans came to Indiana and claimed the territory for Kingdom of France during the 1670s" - the tribes were still dominant in the 1670s; they didn't suddenly stop being there when the explorers arrived"
    • Use of descriptor "Hoosiers" in the lead without explaining what that is (many people will not know that is the Indiana nickname)

I dont think the lead is the place the go into that, I just replaced it with "residents" of Indiana. Charles Edward

• • • Pronoun antecedents don't always match: example "During the early 20th century the state developed into a strong manufacturing state, then experienced setbacks during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The state saw many developments during this time " - which time? the 1930s is the last time discussed, or does this mean the early 20th century?

clarified this point, are there others? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • In the lead there is a reference to Eli Lilly. This goes to a disambig page - do you mean the company or the man?

fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Lots of repetition across sentences that could be reduced. example "Evidence suggests that Indiana had a very low population following the Hopewell decline. The population remained low until " could be rewritten "Following the Hopewll decline, evidence suggests that Indiana's population was low until..."

I've tried to remove as much as this as I have noticed. Is there more? Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I've seen several grammatical errors - verbs don't agree with subjects, extra words in sentences, no apostrophes in words that need it. It needs a thorough read-through again.

I've went through the article about ten times looking for things. It's all starting to run together. Hopefully I have fixed some of the issues. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • MOS issues
    • Per WP:MOSDASH, use ndash instead of a hyphen for date ranges (and it should be spaced for a date range)

i've replaced all the ones I saw in the article. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Capitalization errors: Cultures, Priests, etc probably shouldn't be capitalized. Check the article for other instances of wikilinks like these that ended up improperly capitalized.

fixed the ones I found Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Per WP:MOSQUOTE, quotations of fewer that 4 lines should not be offset.

I assume you are refering to the consitution quote - I have removed that line. Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • See also templates should be at the beginning of a section, not at the end, and I don't think that See also: History of Indianopolis really belongs here anyway - maybe in the See also section at bottom?

fixed Charles Edward 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • Why is Jefferson Academy bolded? That appears to be against WP:MOSBOLD.

I believe it was bolded because it was not wikilinked. That can be changed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • • I see at least one instance where there is no conversion between standard and metric.
    • I don't believe that "War" is supposed to be capitalized when used by itself.
  • "but it is theorized that European plagues " - theorized by whom?

Theorized by the author of the book in reference that ends the paragraph. Should I duplicate the reference at every statement that is made using that reference, even within the same parapgraph? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation method you use is fine, but it is usually best when there is phrasing like "it is theorized" to make it explicitly clear in the sentence who is doing the theorizing. Sometimes the source is reporting that someone else theorizes that. I'd rephrase to say..."Historian/author/etc John Doe theorizes that ..." Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • If La Salle didn't come to Indiana until 1679, how was there an outpost within the territory in 1673?

La Salle claimed the land for france, he was the first to map it and truely explore. Traders were in indiana before him dealing in furs. That could be made more clear. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Lots of excess wikilinking and repetition in section France. It talks about each fort, when it was founded and by whom, and then has this sentence which repeats all the info " Of these forts the more important included Fort Vincennes (Present day Vincennes), Fort Ouiatenon (Present day Lafayette), and Fort Miamis (Present day Fort Wayne). "

that can be pared down Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • On my screen, there is a gap of several lines before the paragraph beginning "By the 1850s". This is likely because the image and table are bumping against each other; one of these should be moved.
  • Is there a source for "In the early 19th century, most transportation in Indiana was accomplished by river.
  • Is there a source for "The first road in the region was called Buffalo Trace"
  • Is there a source for fact that New Albany was the largest city?
  • Is there a source for "The first major road in the state was the National Road, "
  • Is there a source for "The value to the South of this secession was only a brief piece of propaganda."
  • Is there a source for "Prior to the Civil war, the population was generally in the south of the state where easy access to the Ohio River provided a convenient means to export products and agriculture to New Orleans to be sold"?
  • Is there a source for "This would lead to a population shift to the north where the state would come to rely more on the great lakes and the railroad for exports"?
  • Is there a source for "Indiana's economy diversified in those years as manufacturing lost ground to the service industry."

I've added references to each of these statesments or a sentence or two after that should satisfy the claims. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Some of the images are of Governors. It might be helpful to put the years of their terms in office in the captions.

There are no images of the governors of Indiana in the article. There is one of President Harrison who was a territorial governor, but he was more than just governor, wouldn't it take away from him to just put his dates as governor? Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the picture of Harrison and one of Gov. Morton. I think the captions should have a bit more context. In Harrison's case, it could say something like, "Harrison, the xxth U.S. President and the only one from Indiana, served as territorial governor from yyyy to zzzz". Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, I have done that. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Citation 25 appears improperly formatted (1896) title= Conquest of the Country Northwest of the River Ohio, 1778–1783, and Life of Gen. George Rogers Clark {{{title}}} Vol 2. Indianapolis: Bowen-Merrill, 71–72. )

this can be fixed Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • I'm a little concerned that the article relies a great deal on the Indiana Center for History, the Indiana state government, and various websites. I would imagine that there are many books dealing with the history of Indiana, and I wonder why those weren't used rather than the web sources. I'd rather see independent third-party sources.

75% of the article is sourced from books exclusively. I would have sourced this whole things books, but then how could anyone verify anything at all unless you have access to a libary. There is a question about an image i scanned from one book in a lower comment that is not available in a copy of the book they are looking at. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification requires that good sources be used, not that internet sources be used. Many FAs, especially for historical events do not use a single web source, and that is okay. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand how Indiana Historical Bureau stuff could be conisdered questionable and will work through to see what I can be replaced with better references. But in regards to the Indian Center for History, that is funded by the Northern Indiana Historical Society, and independent orginazation, I would think that those sources are acceptable. Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• • The books listed in the reference section are using different formatting methods. Can these be made more consistent?

All the books where listed using the cite book template, they should all be formated the same. Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Don't put a section around the templates. They should just be by themselves.

I am not sure what you mean by this. please advise. Thanks Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a section called Other Information, and the only information in it is two templates.

The section header should be removed. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK fixed Charles Edward 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. To be honest almost every sentence could have a reference put after it but some if it is such basic knowledge is there really any value to referencing it? I have the books and go do that if you think it is needed, Most of these statements have wiki links which you could follow, as a reader, and get more information, including references on the topic. Please correct me if my assumptions are incorrect on anything :) Charles Edward 18:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not every fact requires a reference. The ones I pointed out are those that could potentially be disputed. It is generally not a good idea to depend on a child article to contain the references, as those articles are outside the control of this one. Karanacs (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.