Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] January 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 promoted 00:15, 28 January 2008.
[edit] Interstate 355
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the criteria. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've meant to add early data from an excellent, well-referenced report by former Cook County member of the policy committee for the Chicago Area Transportation Study. It covers the first long-range transportation plan from 1955-1962 for the Chicago metropolitan area. It's also 36 pages of mostly text. If you'd like to chime in, feel free to with this source: [13] I have no qualms about hearing about other FAC issues. —Rob (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Support This was fun to read. I never heard of this highway before. Maybe the article can get even better with the following suggestions. Most can be fixed very easily:
- Introduction says "Chicago, USA". Isn't putting Illinois usually done?
- 6 lanes the entire length? [citation needed]
- Maybe include a map showing where in the USA the highway is located. See the Interstate 80 article. There you can clearly see where the highway is. The current map is good for detail. But it doesn't help completely because I don't know where Joliet is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolese (talk • contribs) 02:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well this might be tough, I-80 is a national road so that's why the map shows it that way, I-355 is located in one state. I'll try requesting a map, and see what happens. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Explain ISTHA so you don't have to search for it. Put (ISTHA) after the first time you put Illinois State Traffic and ...
- US$ the first time is suggested, then use $
- Are there special lanes for buses or cars carrying shared riders? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Congolese (talk • contribs) 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did travel time decrease as promised by the politicians? Reference?
- "Completely free", is that different from "free"?
- There is mention of different areas but if you don't know the area, it takes a lot of searching the list. Since there are no exit numbers, why not add mile numbers to the description (when exits are mentioned?)
- What were the environmental concerns? References?
- Home Depot and others were a result of I-355 or just politician's spin and patting themselves on the back? References?
- The article (ref 22) connects the projects and the tollway directly (according to my read)... if the tollway wasn't there, neither would the commercial developments. I could mention that local politics had a hand in terms of pro-development policies, but I'd have to find the ref for that, plus I think it's not necessary. —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Those who pay by cash have to exit the mainline? Photo? Does that mean you have to drive off the highway?
- Southern Extension, paragraph 6, notable according to whom?
- Does the signage mention cities the way the Interstate 80 article does (and has a figure in the article)?
- References. Need a consistent style. Not quite there yet.
- FAC criteria says "exemplifies our best work". Being an obscure topic makes it hard for me to think it is WP's best work. Being a nice article and well written is achievable. Being better than major topics is hard. Just a thought.
- I've thought about that for some time... it's something that affects millions of travelers a year and was a major turning point in the suburbanization of DuPage County, and will soon change Will County from farming to second-most populous county in Illinois. If the article manages to transcend the technical and tells the complete story of the highway's place in its history, it can become one of Wikipedia's best works. Thanks for the comments! —Rob (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Since you are the expert, you may find some of my novice comments not helpful. If this is the case, sorry. Overall, a nice article about a highway that I knew nothing about until recently.Congolese (talk) 02:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC) Addition: Before I gave the article a polite support. It's better now, so I give it full support. Congolese fufu (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) (I'm User:Congolese, just changed the name so it wouldn't offend anyone)
- Oppose. the early history isn't cited. There aren't any details on what the 1988 lawsuit was over. When did the FHWA add it to the Interstate Highway System? The "major cities" box in the route description is unnecessary. --NE2 15:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was a typo - it was before 1985, and unfortunately, that's the limit of online news article from the Chicago Tribune. Looking for stuff on FHWA though - that's the stuff newspapers don't cover, and I was hoping the FHWA website would be more helpful. I'll contact the standing committee responsible for route numbering and see if I get something, quickly. Lawsuit information may have to come from a microfiche. —Rob (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I was the GA reviewer, and the article was great then. It meets FA criteria in my opinion, well written and backed up comprehensively by reliable and verifiable sources. Rt. 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: please review the dead links per the external link checker linked at the top of this page.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I see. I'll put my support "on hold" - as it were. Rt. 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, only one link remains but I think the external link checker is making a mistake. "Bridge to southwest around the corner" [ref 24 in the article] does not lead to a dead link in the article, as shown here. But in the external link checker, it leads to a different link, a dead one. I don't know what do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No mistake in the linkchecker; the Tribune link was dead, and the link you provided above is live. I switched them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so there really was a dead link, sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Whoops. I guess I copied the address bar URL for that one, not the OpenURL link. Infoweb requires authentication to get in (via a local public library, for instance) but it provides individual articles to users (presumably to check references) for free via an OpenURL at the bottom of the page. I've changed that link to the OpenURL link. —Rob (talk) 05:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, so there really was a dead link, sorry about that, thanks for fixing it. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 19:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- No mistake in the linkchecker; the Tribune link was dead, and the link you provided above is live. I switched them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, interesting, only one link remains but I think the external link checker is making a mistake. "Bridge to southwest around the corner" [ref 24 in the article] does not lead to a dead link in the article, as shown here. But in the external link checker, it leads to a different link, a dead one. I don't know what do here. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I'll put my support "on hold" - as it were. Rt. 14:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some comments (I haven't looked above). More non-breaking spaces are needed, such as 20 percent, $2.5 million, 55 minutes, 200,000 cars, etc. 189 acres should have a metric conversion. The reference is awkward; I don't think that it should reference the Google search. For the broken links in the search, you could use an internet archive website, such as the Wayback machine. For figures involving money, you should indicate the year of the cost, as well as an inflated cost, to provide a modern perspective; this site is used by the Tropical cyclone Wikiproject. I believe 99-year should be 99–year. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've put in a few non-breaking spaces, but you have no idea how much I wish Safari/Firefox/anyone could show those more easily. I've also put non-breaking spaces in things like "Illinois 53" and "75th Street". Is there some sort of template that handles inflation for me? I'd hate to have to have editors go in there yearly and update dollars to modern equivalents. Also fixed the ndash in 99–year. Exit list might need to be converted to ndashes as well. —Rob (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed the google references problem, thanks for the comments. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 17:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Inflation numbers have been added for years prior to 2000. I'm not sure if there's value in putting in numbers from more recent dates than 2000. —Rob (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've put in a few non-breaking spaces, but you have no idea how much I wish Safari/Firefox/anyone could show those more easily. I've also put non-breaking spaces in things like "Illinois 53" and "75th Street". Is there some sort of template that handles inflation for me? I'd hate to have to have editors go in there yearly and update dollars to modern equivalents. Also fixed the ndash in 99–year. Exit list might need to be converted to ndashes as well. —Rob (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Stability
Although it's curious to declare stability after a nomination, I'm declaring the article largely stable. (I hadn't expected to be doing this much editing during a nomination... but it wasn't me who nominated the article. :-D That's OK though). Of course further editing will be necessary to address further concerns, but in terms of things I felt were missing from the article when initially nominated... I think those have been added.
The following items may be added at a later date:
1962 Chicago Area Transportation Study info, if any (remember, the highway was at this point more a concept than even an engineering plan) - see link at top- FHWA designates north-south tollway as I-355 on completion. Chicago Tribune no help on this one, but the first mention of I-355 in the paper is April 26, 1988 (see below) which strongly, strongly, strongly points to an AASHTO decision in fall 1987 or spring 1988
Brief mention of 20-year pavement life span here: Mehler, Neil H.. "Tollway tries to get rock-solid pavement", Chicago Tribune, 1988-04-26.- Morton arboretum initial lawsuit and resolution might need to be made clearer. Comments?
—Rob (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. All my issues have been been fixed. This is a well-written article. Karanacs (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for now. It seems to be a well-written article, but there are some WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed.An image should not have been placed directly below the infobox. This means that the TOC is not appearing where it should and you have a lot of blank space.- Looks perfectly fine on my computer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad it looks good for you, but it doesn't on my machine if I have the window maximized in IE. I've moved the image to be just inside the History section instead of outside, and now it appears correctly in my browser; hopefully it still looks nice in yours too. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks perfectly fine on my computer. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
In the section Opening, you have a missing number where you tried to convert $2.5 million to 2007 dollars (it reads $3 to $ million in 2007)Please note that image captions should not end in a period unless they are full sentences."Veterans Day, 2007 (November 11, 2007)" should probably read "Veterans Day (November 11) 2007.- Fixed. —Rob (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- That would break date prefs. As it is, it had a nbsp in there preventing date prefs from parsing; that was fixed.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Month-day combinations should always be wikilinked even when there is no year to allow date preferences to work. Please check all the instances of November 11 to make sure they are wikilinked.- All newspaper references need to have the date field filled out. You also need to have the title of the newspaper article. For example, reference 6 does not give the title or author (if available) of the particular article that you are citing. It should be reformatted similar to this {{citation|title=Article Title Here|last=Author Last Name|first=Author First Name|date=[[April 25]], [[1963]]|newspaper=The Daily Herald|publisher=Newspaper Archive|accessdate=[[2007-12-22]]}}
- newspaper names need to be italicized in references
Need access dates for all web links, and there aren't any for the Chicago Tribune articlesNo publisher listed for reg 24Your Chicago Tribune refs aren't formatted consistently. Ref 54 is the preferred way to do it- It sounds like you want the refs to not have quotes around the article name, and to have the publisher be italicized. These changes would have to take place in {{cite news}}, and I'll post the results of that request here. —Rob (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- As it was, there were also some random cite webs in there instead of cite news - I fixed that too. —Rob (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:NBSP - I second the need for nonbreaking spaces.
Karanacs (talk) 15:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- On a revisit, it looks like most of my concerns have been addressed, but please note that the articles taken from the Newspaper Archive need to have the actual article title (and authors, if present) cited. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments—It's good, but the prose needs fixing here and there throughout; please don't just fix these random examples—get someone fresh to go through it (a word-nerd found from the edit histories of similar good articles).
- "Illinois" appears three times in the first three lines now, so I'd have rejected that advice to add it after "Chicago" (that little-known town). Also, it's linked TWICE in the same sentence ...
- "North-South" should have an en dash here ("North–South", even if the owners of the highway were mitaken in using a hyphen. It will google just the same. See MOS. Same issue for "Schaumburg-Wheaton-Bolingbrook corridor", which needs to be piped into proper formatting, despite the wrong punctuation in its article title. And "north-south transportation corridor"—audit all compounds that are to -->
- I'm wondering why you bothered to put a tiny, squinty map in the infoblot at the top, and then to duplicate it at a better size immediately below. Why not provide a photograph at the top? That would be more interesting.
- Mostly stylistic - the teeny tiny map that every other Interstate article has is useful for determining general location, but I found it unusually annoying to have to click the map to read the words. Hence, the larger map. It will be moved off to "Route description" and a pic can be bumped to the top. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't need "US" dollars linked (twice in a row, hello?). MOS says not even to bother specifying US dollars in US-related articles (with good reason). Good conversions into 2007 dollars.
- "April of 1985"—MOS breach; spot the redundant word.
- Why is a common word such as "earmarked" linked? It's not wiktionary.
- "decided to pave I-355 with pavement"—ungainly repitition; I can't think of a solution, but one is needed.
- "The concrete on the tollway was 12 inches (30 cm) thick and an 8 inches (20 cm) sub-base"—with an 8-inch sub-base? Ungrammatical as is.
- "The new pavement also incorporated"—remove "also".
- "at a cost of $2 million to $2.5 million (1990, $3 to $4.0 million in 2007)"—MOS breach WRT decimal points. And even three point nought dollars won't do—that's a huge range.
- Is "around $2 million" better? It may be possible to narrow the range, but without looking at the original bids, it may not be possible. And for something relatively ancillary, too. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you know that it was $2.0–2.5 million, don't sacrifice that level of precision; do it to one decimal place in both units, though. Three dollars to four million is surely not what you mean (range of $3,999,997). Format as I did in the first sentence here.
- Is "around $2 million" better? It may be possible to narrow the range, but without looking at the original bids, it may not be possible. And for something relatively ancillary, too. —Rob (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Plus lots more. Tony (talk) 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process.Tony (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - there are some issues to address before this article meets criterion 1a:
- "From 1963 to 1970, a new expressway was built..." - passive voice obscures subject, who built?
- Some long sentences are extremely hard to read: "Of these corridors, the vast majority, including the Des Plaines River expressway, the Crosstown Expressway running north-south along the west side of Chicago, and most of a proposed northern extension of Illinois 53 ran into intense local opposition and were never built."
- Why is "earmarked" wikilinked?
- "The $100 million (1979, $284 million in 2007) remaining was then earmarked for the new freeway to replace Illinois 53. However, this amount was found to be insufficient for construction. The project was then converted into a tollway, and the money spent on other projects in the county." All passive voice, all sentences whose subjects the reader might like to know. Who earmarked? Who converted? Who spent?
- "In addition, earthen berms would be built along the tollway to prevent salt spray from damaging arboretum plants, which had already been affected by salt spray from the then East-West Tollway, which itself was 0.25 miles (402 m) away." Too long, too many prepositional phrases.
- "Under the agreement, Morton Arboretum would charge DuPage County residents a lower prices for admission one day of the week, built a bicycle path connecting the arboretum to nearby forest preserves, and begin a joint clean-streams program to improve the water quality of DuPage County's lakes and streams." Mixed verb tenses.
- "Concerns were somewhat alleviated when the tollway agreed to..." Passive voice again, and how does a tollway agree to do something?
- "The tollway agreed to..." Same comment as above.
- These are just in the "Early history" section and I have not read further because it's clear that the article needs a thorough copy edit by a fresh editor. Please pay particular attention to writing in the passive voice; its use here frequently obscures the subject of the sentence. --Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Tollway" and "Illinois State Toll Highway Authority" are used interchangeably to refer to the entity that manages the toll roads - yes, that causes confusion. If earmark really is such a common word, I'll just delink it. —Rob (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Ooooh, thanks for clearing that up. One of those local colloquialisms that aren't clear to the rest of us :) --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Thanks for the help so far. It really does need a more thorough copyedit though - your changes were fairly minor. --Laser brain (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
JA10 and Rob, have you asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) and NE2 (talk · contribs) to have another look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Negative - their root concerns haven't really been addressed yet. I've never opened up an article to edit specifically for active vs. passive verb tenses, subjects and whatnot, but I will do that very, very soon. I will ask NE2 to re-review his vote, as the FHWA date is a small chunk of information, and the amount of effort that has gone into trying to find it now outweighs the value of the date itself. —Rob (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is the best interstate article I have ever seen. Nice job on on it. Tavix (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Exit list needs clean up. If that is taken care of, I'll change my vote to support. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)- Support Other than the exit list, the rest of the article looks fine. ^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 21:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I just cross-checked the list against the exit list guide... everything conforms (with the possible exception of the head and tail rows, which just haven't been discussed). The ramp types are there as a result of a suggestion. What are you referring to? —Rob (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mileage and exit number should be switched, according to WP:ELG.
Also, the exit number should be labeled #, not Plaza #.^_^ AL2TB ^_^ 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)- What are you talking about? this highway doesn't have exit numbers, it states that above the exit list. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 03:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mileage and exit number should be switched, according to WP:ELG.
- I just cross-checked the list against the exit list guide... everything conforms (with the possible exception of the head and tail rows, which just haven't been discussed). The ramp types are there as a result of a suggestion. What are you referring to? —Rob (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't get it, you mean "plaza number", that only violates ELG as a minor problem, and its a special case for this toll road because it has plazas and shouldn't be that big of deal to oppose. Other than that I have no idea what you're talking about. —JA10 Talk • Contribs 05:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note that Kansas Turnpike, another USRD FA, doesn't even have an exit list, having been replaced with a section that goes into detail on the history of each interchange. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Change to provision support: I hope this gets through, but everywhere I look there are glitches.
- Someone has gone wild changing all of the hyphens to en dashes. Please read MOS on both. "two–lane wide Rohlwing Road"—no "two-lane-wide Rohlwing Road". "limited-access".
- "In an effort to head off problems"—Spot the three redundant words".
- Three problems: "a 8 inches (20 cm) sub–base" --> "an 8-inch (20 cm) sub–base".
- "As a Christmas "gift," the first two days of"—comma after the quote mark. See MOS.
- "$3 to $4 million in 2007"—no, "$3–4 million in 2007"; et al.
- Clumsy: "As one of the newer tollways in the system, the Veterans Memorial Tollway has also seen considerable toll–collection related improvements"—remove "also"; "considerable improvements in toll collection" better than what should be a two-hyphen unit (not one hyphen, and certainly not one en dash, which means -->"to"-->).
These are just odd samples. So much work has been done, and just an hour by someone else who's good at copy-editing and knows MOS will do. Tony (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, at this point, memorizing the MOS would probably just be a better use of time. At least now I know where en-dashes should be... —Rob (talk) 04:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 00:20, 27 January 2008.
[edit] Doomsday (Doctor Who)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it to be of a quality similar to The Joy of Sect and Through the Looking Glass. I've been working on it for several months from this, full of a unwieldy plot summary and too many inconsequential points, to its current status. I am aware that the plot summary is about 620 words long, when it should be about 100 less, but 600 appears to be the lower limit where the plot summary loses clarity. Will (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment
Resolved stuff from Buc
- "What!?" not very encyclopaedic.
Done - it's a bit relevant to the episode - he actually says it three times. He does it again at the end of another episode under similar circumstances. Still, it's taking up twnety words I'm trying to get rid of to make the plot section as small as it can while being clear.
Will (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)#
- Weak oppose
- "Noel Clarke and Phil Collinson felt the position should have been given to Mickey." Could do with saying why they thought this and why there suggestion was turned down. On a side note has this article had a ce? Buc (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
ce mean copy-edit. What do they say then. Buc (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Sullivan says that there was a rift, and all the commentary says is that Clarke was "petitioning" (Davies' words, not mine) for the privilege. Re c/e: I haven't requested a copyedit because I find the LOCE too slow; I had an article on FAC (now FA) two months ago and they haven't got to that yet. Will (talk) 17:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Gardner
- And [Rose's] dad...
- Davies
- How much did Noel Clarke want to be the one who came through? He was petitioning, he was phoning me up!
- Gardner
- And it could've been Mickey.
- Davies
- And you all... didn't you want it to be Mickey?
- Gardner
- Phil wanted it to be Mickey, I wanted it to be Pete.
- Support I can see nothing wrong with the article, and it definitely conforms to the guidelines. The aritcle is well sourced, and all above issues have been resumed. - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
However, there is still no mention of the nomination on the article's talk page. If this is done, then great - Weebiloobil (talk) 11:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is a mention of it- it's the top banner. StuartDD contributions 11:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- My mistake! Well, I guess this removes any opposition that I have to the idea - Weebiloobil (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Support – I made a number of minor changes to the article. I did not understand the plot section, but this article will generally only be read by one who follows the show. Nice work, –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the infobox, under length, it says "2nd of 2 episodes", but I do not see why this information is relevant. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The first sentence of the plot section is "Dr Singh, Mickey and Rose are trapped in a sealed room within Torchwood Tower, with four Daleks who have emerged from the void ship approach them." Should the "with" be changed to "when"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The final sentence of the plot section is "He looks up to see a woman in a wedding dress, who sharply demands that he tell her where she is." Who is "she"? If the "she" is an unknown character, then maybe it should be italicized or put in quotation marks. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Finally, there is no mention of the episode being a series (season) finale in the lead and I think that there should be. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The "2nd of 2 episodes" refers to the story's length in particular, as the old series had serials ranging from 2 to 14 episodes long.
- Sentence fixed.
- This also appears in the infobox under length which is very confusing. It also implise there were only 2 episodes in the whole series. Buc (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- At the time of the episode, the identity of the woman was not known.
- Done. Will (talk) 01:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The identity of the woman is revealed in the following episode The Runaway Bride, but is not known here. StuartDD contributions 19:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Will has done an excellent job here, and I think it's good enough for FA. StuartDD contributions 19:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak ObjectStrong OpposeOn my cursory read-through, I found various stylistic issues, and a number of places where the plot could be tightened. I expect that there are more still present. There is one statement that I think needs a citation (I marked it in the text). I'm extremely surprised that the Doctor Who Magazine hasn't been used as a source – I would have expected it to be a valuable resource on the production of the episode (the producer writes a "production notes" column for the magazine). No mention of the Radio Times covers? There would have been a cover story in that Radio Times, which would also be expected as a source. Bluap (talk) 02:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)I have changed my opinion to strong oppose, since the article editors have responded to my citation request by simply removing the {{fact}} tag, rather than finding a suitable reference. (The citation at the end of that paragraph does not support the statement. Parallel worlds are a recurring motif in science fiction: there are plenty of stories that could have inspired this aspect of the episode) Bluap (talk) 16:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)- That is just the worst reason to oppose anything ever. I am quoting the source here.
Pullman also talked about the end of series two of Doctor Who - when Billie was left in a parallel world - and how similar some people say it is to his own Dark Materials series. "I was flattered by it," Pullman said. "That's how stories work. Stories are made out of other stories. I borrowed things for His Dark Materials. He [Russell T Davies] took my ending and twisted it to fit his story. That's fine."
-
- That to me does not say the parallel worlds aspect alone came from Pullman, and I don't believe it did: the writer of this episode resurrected a one-serial villain that no-one on Outpost Gallifrey guessed, so I'm pretty sure he'd know about the whole season that was set in another universe. The citation to me says that the end bore similarities to His Dark Materials beyond parallel universes. Either that, or Pullman has delusions of grandeur. Will (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Looks good! -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Missing publisher, is this a reliable source?
-
- Smith and Jones AI figure (April 2, 2007). Retrieved on January 24, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 18:19, 26 January 2008.
[edit] Emma Watson
I believe that all the improvements that could be extracted from the previous FAC have been implemented. With the details of Ballet Shoes now integrated this is an ideal time to develop the article to FA status. Happy‑melon 21:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Ref 2 does not look like a reliable source. It's one of those anyone can become an author type of sites. 22:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuddingJournalist (talk • contribs)
- Update Checking back, and noting that Ref 2 is still there. It would be nice if a more reliable source was found to replace it. BuddingJournalist 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: as Ballet Shoes is a film, it's supposed to be italicized; I see it several times in the article where the title is both with and without italics. It also concerns me that the article is semi-protected. Is it stable (WP:FACR 1e) or is that to protect it from vandalizing middle schoolers? María (habla conmigo) 23:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments Support.
- Both reinforced the notion that her character, Hermione, should romance Ron Weasley: this doesn't seem supported by the following citation, and in any case I'm not sure what it means -- does it mean that the actresses told Emma Watson that they agreed with her analysis of the characters? If so I think this could be rephrased.
- Can you identify the people in the shot from Ballet Shoes? I.e. "left to right" at the front of the list, or however you like.
- It seems odd to call The Tale of Despereaux "her first non-Harry Potter project" after talking about Ballet Shoes. Isn't Ballet Shoes her first non-Harry Potter project? Or do you mean first film?
- Despereaux was announced first, although it will be released after Ballet Shoes. Does this need clarification? Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would help. Mike Christie (talk) 03:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Despereaux was announced first, although it will be released after Ballet Shoes. Does this need clarification? Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest changing "whilst"; see Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid contested vocabulary for the MOS point of view on words like that.
- Although I think the focus on interviews with Watson rather than Radcliffe or Grint is entirely right, there's one moment where I'd like to hear their point of view: Watson maintains that there were never any romantic feelings involved. Surely they've been asked this question in their interviews, and any reader interested in Watson is going to wonder what they said.
- I think it would be better to expand PPE to "Philosophy, Politics and Economics"; I know it's linked but readers who don't know it (most, I would think) won't want to see the article, they'll just want to know what it stands for.
- Watson says her greatest wish is "to have two friends, which stay – people with you can always be together and who don't scoot, because you are a film star." I assume this is an error in the source, probably for "people with whom you"; it reads very oddly to me. You've transcribed it correctly from the source, but this is so jarring that if you can't source it elsewhere I think this should probably go.
- I know it's a little early in her career, but is there sufficient material in academic film criticism that mentions her yet to have a "comments and criticism" section? I took a look at the Bette Davis article, which is an FA; of course there is an almost infinite amount written about Davis. I tried some digging for myself on Google Books, and what little I found was more about Hermione Granger than about Watson, as you might expect. For example, Lana A. Whited's The Ivory Tower and Harry Potter: Perspectives on a Literary Phenomenon has some material. I know this is a long shot but I thought I'd ask.
I noticed that a Wikipedia editor has provided a translation of an interview, cited in a footnote. Would this be counted as a reliable source? Is it covered in a policy or guideline? While I've no reason to doubt the translation, and my rusty German confirms most of it, I do wonder what policy says here.I found the answer in a link provided in the previous FAC.- I also noticed in the previous some discussion of her position at 98 in an FHM hot 100 list of sexy women. This was discussed on the talk page, I see, and briefly thought to be in error, but ultimately found to be factual. Was it removed for some other reason? I don't see it in the article now.
-- Mike Christie (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Switched to support. Mike Christie (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- In the light of the opposes below, I'll just comment that I don't personally share Indrian's and Melty Girl's objections, though I agree with them that some of the material (e.g. the comment about kissing Grint) is the sort of thing that would appear in an article in Seventeen. I'm not sure any of our content policies directly forbid this material. I also wonder about precedent; have there been FAs on famous people that included material like this? If Indrian is willing, it might be useful to take up his offer in order to have a version to compare, but I am not yet convinced that this content renders the article unsuitable for FA. Mike Christie (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an issue of content policy; it is an issue of quality. Featured articles are supposed to be the best encyclopedia articles on the site. The less an article reads like it belongs in an encyclopedia, the less this ideal is realized. Anyway, sometime today or tomorrow I will start working on a revision. I reiterate that most of the article is very good; it just needs a little polish and a little less of Watson's comments on tangential topics. Indrian (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me be a little clearer about my objections to some of the content. An encyclopedia article about an actor should primarily cover the actor's career/acting: the performances, the critical response to those performances, the degree of success of the films/shows/plays, awards, the actor's influences and who they influenced, whether they affected the craft, the things they're most noted for by critics. Yes, it should also give the basic facts of their personal origins and primary relationships, but the article should not overly dwell on the feelings of the subject about their life, and certainly not how they feel about everyone they've worked with. (It's on this basis that I have in the past targeted the whole "Professional relationships" section as superfluous; and I haven't seen such a section in other FAs.) Not only are Watson's feelings about colleagues gossip, which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, but they're off-topic -- this is an article about Emma Watson, not all these other people. And our sources should be reliable publications, not the website of Emma Watson, which is not neutral and is probably co-authored by PR people. There's a balance to be struck, and it's off here. This is an encyclopedia; it should be a sober, dispassionate, outside view of the subject. While much of the article's content overlaps with magazine content -- Seventeen would discuss her acting too! -- the focus and language should be very different here. --Melty girl (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I don't disagree with any of this - I simply dispair as to how to achieve this while leaving something in the article! I will be very interested to read Indrian's revised version. I do, however, take issue with the reliability of http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com - let's not lose track of what we're citing to this website. Reviews, commentary, critical reception - of course this can't be sourced to her website, as it's certainly not going to be neutral. But please explain to me why her official site is unqualified to note that she will be involved in The Tale of Desperaux? Or that she was born in Paris? I just picked the first two references, but an official site would seem to be the most reliable source for pure, objective facts. Who is going to know Emma Watson's birthday better than Emma Watson? If the question was "Where did Watson go to school" and two possible sources were "Where I went to school" by Emma Watson, or "Where Emma Watson went to school" by the BBC or The Times, I would say the former is the more reliable source of the two, although of course I would include both if they were available. Am I missing something here? Happy‑melon 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to echo Mike's thoughts here. What would an "encyclopedic" article on Emma Watson look like? I just have no idea what encyclopedic means in this context. Would Britannica ever have such an article, and if it did would anyone even be interested in the way they'd present it? Over the summer Emma Watson was frequently a top-100 article, read by demonstrable millions. Why do we have an encyclopedia article on Watson? Is it not because she was cast as a member of one of the most iconic trios in popular literature? Is not her relationship with the other members of that iconic trio pertinent information? I agree that you could have too much of such info, but I think you could also have too little. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said above, there's a balance to be struck, but I found it to be off here. Jay, what do you think of Indrian's version of the article? --Melty girl (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Melty! (Hey when is your next FAC coming through ;) I haven't had time to give a detailed look at both versions or to put a huge amount of thought into it. It looks like Indrian's version is based off the premise that Watson's own feeling about her film roles are irrelevant. I'm not sure I accept that as a valid biographical premise. I'd certainly want to know what Ronald Reagan felt about his presidency, or what Ernest Hemingway thought of his books. With Miss Watson, her film roles are the reason she's here. I want to know what she thinks of that! I do agree that it's a balance, but I think Indrian's version goes too far. If nothing else losing the bit about the dentures -- what an incisive little nugget about life as a child actress! I would suggest that the issues with Emma Watson at the moment are prose issues, rather than content. It wouldn't seem so Seventeen-y I think, if the sections weren't as formulaic. I.e. facts about movie 1, "later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 1. Facts about movie 2. "Later Watson said..." her opinions about movie 2. So as far as the Indrian version integrates things smoothly, I think that's something to work toward. Hmm... depending on the status of my other projects I'd enjoy hashing this one out. Be fun to work on an article that gets onto that top-100 list. --JayHenry (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I said above, there's a balance to be struck, but I found it to be off here. Jay, what do you think of Indrian's version of the article? --Melty girl (talk) 05:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have to echo Mike's thoughts here. What would an "encyclopedic" article on Emma Watson look like? I just have no idea what encyclopedic means in this context. Would Britannica ever have such an article, and if it did would anyone even be interested in the way they'd present it? Over the summer Emma Watson was frequently a top-100 article, read by demonstrable millions. Why do we have an encyclopedia article on Watson? Is it not because she was cast as a member of one of the most iconic trios in popular literature? Is not her relationship with the other members of that iconic trio pertinent information? I agree that you could have too much of such info, but I think you could also have too little. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I don't disagree with any of this - I simply dispair as to how to achieve this while leaving something in the article! I will be very interested to read Indrian's revised version. I do, however, take issue with the reliability of http://www.emmawatsonofficial.com - let's not lose track of what we're citing to this website. Reviews, commentary, critical reception - of course this can't be sourced to her website, as it's certainly not going to be neutral. But please explain to me why her official site is unqualified to note that she will be involved in The Tale of Desperaux? Or that she was born in Paris? I just picked the first two references, but an official site would seem to be the most reliable source for pure, objective facts. Who is going to know Emma Watson's birthday better than Emma Watson? If the question was "Where did Watson go to school" and two possible sources were "Where I went to school" by Emma Watson, or "Where Emma Watson went to school" by the BBC or The Times, I would say the former is the more reliable source of the two, although of course I would include both if they were available. Am I missing something here? Happy‑melon 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Oppose. I must once again voice my opposition to this article as I did before on the grounds that it still reads like an article in Seventeen rather than an encyclopedia article, running afoul of criteria 4 relating to summary style. The article is not an interview with Miss Watson in which she tells us her feelings on kiss scenes, co-stars, and favorite dramatic moments in her movies; it is an encyclopedia article chronicling her life and career. Each individual Harry Potter movie summary is incredibly short and could probably be combined into one or two broader headings that do not break up the text so much. The "post-mortem" comments on how Miss Watson felt about working on each movie should be elminated, though there is certainly nothing wrong with sumamrizing at some point how she viewed her experience in the movies. As I stated in the last FAC, there is absolutely no need to give a quote about what she thought about having to kiss a co-star; no professional encyclopedia would include this kind of gossip and not because it would make the article too long. I would be happy to lend a hand in getting this article free of these few blemishes to what otherwise truly is a feature quality work, so just give the word and I will create a revision as a user subpage and work towards hashing out something we can all be happy with. Indrian (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)- Hit me! I'd be delighted to see any such suggestion. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, my revision is done and can be found at User:Indrian/Emma Watson. Just a few notes. The references may be a little messed up because I did not bother to reformat any as part of this run. Also, the headings were created on the fly, and there may be better heading names out there. I do strongly feel, however, that the individual film headings broke up the text to much and would be opposed to reinstating them. Finally, I know Happy-melon, that you are concerned about length, but I would not let that worry you. There is no length requirement for FA, and this version of the article presents all the relevant details of Watson's life with good sourcing and is featured quality in terms of comprehensiveness in my opinion. Note that while your version is longer, it is not necessarily more comprehensive because much of the material I have cut is tangential and does not add anymore insight into her life and career thus far. This version is, of course, by no means final, and all feedback is appreciated. You may be able to convince me that some of what I cut truly is necessary or could be readded in a way that speaks to my objections, but there is no way that the article as it currently stands will get my vote. Hope this helps. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, is there going to be any discussion on this, or is this FAC just going to die due to opposition? Indrian (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was waiting for you and Happy-melon to work out the major points of disagreement on the draft so that it could be implemented in the actual article and officially considered in this FAC. Or do you guys want to proceed differently? BTW, it looks like JayHenry is interested in helping out too. --Melty girl (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was my assumption as well, but Happy-melon has not commented on the changes yet. Until I get some feedback from him, I cannot really proceed, so I was hoping he might pop on at some point to comment. Indrian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have looked at your version, Indrian, and it has clarified for me the kind of improvements you were talking about. I agree it's an improvement, though there may be some places where you might have cut just a little too much. Anyway, I agree that we should wait for Happy-melon before getting into details; we need to review what's actually at the article, and your version isn't the article yet. Mike Christie (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- That was my assumption as well, but Happy-melon has not commented on the changes yet. Until I get some feedback from him, I cannot really proceed, so I was hoping he might pop on at some point to comment. Indrian (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was waiting for you and Happy-melon to work out the major points of disagreement on the draft so that it could be implemented in the actual article and officially considered in this FAC. Or do you guys want to proceed differently? BTW, it looks like JayHenry is interested in helping out too. --Melty girl (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- So, is there going to be any discussion on this, or is this FAC just going to die due to opposition? Indrian (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, my revision is done and can be found at User:Indrian/Emma Watson. Just a few notes. The references may be a little messed up because I did not bother to reformat any as part of this run. Also, the headings were created on the fly, and there may be better heading names out there. I do strongly feel, however, that the individual film headings broke up the text to much and would be opposed to reinstating them. Finally, I know Happy-melon, that you are concerned about length, but I would not let that worry you. There is no length requirement for FA, and this version of the article presents all the relevant details of Watson's life with good sourcing and is featured quality in terms of comprehensiveness in my opinion. Note that while your version is longer, it is not necessarily more comprehensive because much of the material I have cut is tangential and does not add anymore insight into her life and career thus far. This version is, of course, by no means final, and all feedback is appreciated. You may be able to convince me that some of what I cut truly is necessary or could be readded in a way that speaks to my objections, but there is no way that the article as it currently stands will get my vote. Hope this helps. Indrian (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- ←Sorry to keep everybody waiting. While Indrian's draft has caused me to have the penny-drop moment and finally realise what Melty girl et al have been complaining about all this time, I agree with those who feel it is a little harsh. I have my own draft going at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, proceeding from the current version down, like Indrian's. Where Indrian has been deliberately aggressive, I have tried to be overly conservative, so that we can come to a happy medium somewhere in the middle. This diff indicates my cuts so far, including (probably to great rejoicement) the entire "Professional relationships" section. I would be very grateful for any comments as to where I have been too soft, or indeed too harsh. Perhaps editors would like to mark (using
<font color="red"></font>tags) further phrases they would like to see cut. Once we get the right content, organising it properly should follow fairly easily. Apologies once again for the delay. Happy‑melon 12:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)- I'll post here for now, but Happy-melon, where would you like comments to go? At the talk page of your draft? Anyway, my main comment on your revision is that I think there is legitimate encyclopedic content in the nature of her prolonged involvement with the same cast over many years of her childhood. I agree with Indrian that the tone of the material you've cut is not right, but how about taking all that cut material, putting it back into "Professional relationships" or some similarly-titled section, and making it less gossipy in tone? For example, this cut sentence: "her parents did their best to make her feel comfortable and that her biggest thrill was getting to know her adult co-stars" is clearly inappropriate; but I think it's encyclopedic to indicate that the child-actor experience was not a problem for her because of her family's support, and that it was enjoyable for her, partly because the other actors were supportive. You don't need the "biggest thrill" approach, or all the quotes (perhaps you don't need any of the quotes); but child-actors are an unusual breed and a note or too about the impact the experience had on her is OK, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The last FAC essentially drowned in its own ink, so I would definitely recommend that comments on the drafts be made on the appropriate talk pages. I have created another draft, User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson/sandbox, which currently contains the offcuts removed from my main draft at User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson. Please feel free to have a play around with these phrases and see if you can make something of them - I'm not entirely sure what you're saying can/should be done with them. Happy‑melon 15:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll post here for now, but Happy-melon, where would you like comments to go? At the talk page of your draft? Anyway, my main comment on your revision is that I think there is legitimate encyclopedic content in the nature of her prolonged involvement with the same cast over many years of her childhood. I agree with Indrian that the tone of the material you've cut is not right, but how about taking all that cut material, putting it back into "Professional relationships" or some similarly-titled section, and making it less gossipy in tone? For example, this cut sentence: "her parents did their best to make her feel comfortable and that her biggest thrill was getting to know her adult co-stars" is clearly inappropriate; but I think it's encyclopedic to indicate that the child-actor experience was not a problem for her because of her family's support, and that it was enjoyable for her, partly because the other actors were supportive. You don't need the "biggest thrill" approach, or all the quotes (perhaps you don't need any of the quotes); but child-actors are an unusual breed and a note or too about the impact the experience had on her is OK, I think. Mike Christie (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hit me! I'd be delighted to see any such suggestion. Happy‑melon 14:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While many problems I had last time around have now been addressed, I must second what Indrian says above. I had these same concerns last time as well, and the problems remain, i.e. a paragraph on what Watson thinks about her co-stars, etc. It's not relevant, and it is more like a Seventeen article than an encyclopedia entry. I hope the nominator will take up Indrian on the kind offer to do a serious revision. --Melty girl (talk) 06:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ok maybe I can give you some stuff to start with. Understand these are just expamples of thing that need to be addressed over the whole article.
- "She rose to prominence playing Hermione Granger, one of three starring roles in the Harry Potter film series." came instead of rose, portrayal instead of playing, lose the second part of the sentence.
- Disagree. The word changes are a lateral move, and the second part of the phrase is needed to explain who Hermoine Granger is -- not everyone knows! BTW, I think the indent of this comment list is misleading. It doesn't appear to be from Indrian, but the indent makes it appear as if it is. If this is not Indrian's elaboration, the whole list should be deindented. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't there be a Internet Movie Database link in the infobox?
- No. This was briefly added, then removed from the actor infobox's parameters. If you want to read the long debate about it, go to Template talk:Infobox actor. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione" don't really need this in the lead.
- I think "Hermione Granger casting" would fit better in the Early life section.
- I disagree. Early life is supposed to be pre-career. --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Watson added that during the production of both films she had lost several baby teeth and had to wear dentures to avoid continuity issues." trivia
- "Watson said she found comfort in already knowing many of the Prisoner of Azkaban crew, who had also worked on Philosopher's Stone." needs ref
- Start with the date the films began production rarther than when it was released.
- What does this mean? --Melty girl (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re-phare some of her quote so they aren't quite as long. For example "Watson's commitment to the final two films was confirmed in March 2007 by Warner Brothers. She said, "I could never let [the role of] Hermione go – she is my hero! I love her too much and love what playing her has meant to me. I am excited and honoured to be finishing what I started and playing her in all seven of the films." could become "Watson's has confirmed her commitment to the final two films. She has been reported to be "excited and honoured" to be playing Hermione in all seven Harry Potter the films, and has described her as her hero."
- Not sure you need the Professional relationships section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bole2 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- "She rose to prominence playing Hermione Granger, one of three starring roles in the Harry Potter film series." came instead of rose, portrayal instead of playing, lose the second part of the sentence.
Comment. I just wanted to let the powers that be in the FAC process know that the primary work on this article has migrated to user subpages and is ongoing. I believe we are close to a final version everyone will be happy with and the lack of activity on the FAC page should not be taken as a sign that this FAC is dying. Indrian (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
ObjectionI think "Watson outperformed thousands of other candidates for the role of Hermione.[2]" sounds very POV. the source (2) - is not very well written, - more importantly however it does not reference that statement at all. - Let me explain why "outperformed" is wrong - others may have been "better actors" overall but been less fit for the specific role. So- both on the count of wrongly referenced and POV, I object against this article as long as it contains this statement in the lead. I hope I was clear, I am very able to re-explain, I am very amenable to discuss this further, thank you for reading. --Kiyarrllston 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure this word is a problem. The goal of an audition is to be the best and most appropriate actor for a specific part. The winner of a specific part has outperformed all other actors for that specific part in the minds of the people who have the part to give. If someone isn't a fit for that specific role, that means they were not able to perform adequately for that specific part. The POV in question is the filmmakers' POV; Wiki merely reports the fact that in the opinion of the filmmakers, Watson outperformed all other comers. --Melty girl (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Regardless, it's an easy fix - both instances removed from the article without damage. Incidentally Melty, is there anything you'd like to comment on from the current version of User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, before I reorganise it and insert it into the article? Happy‑melon 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great, I will take a look this evening after work. --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I agree, Melty. "Outperformed" is a loose cannon of a term, often thrown about by papparazzi and definitely an actor's agent. My suggestion would be something like "In her audition, Watson proved to be an appropriate choice based on efficient acting skills and accurate age and appearance." or something a little less... clinical, maybe? --rm 'w avu 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um, that's a little crazy. The simple fact is that she beat out more competitors than most actors compete against for parts, and that's a notable, factual career win. It need not be quite so downplayed to be NPOV. And what are "efficient acting skills"? -- she's an actor, not a bean counter. But it's moot anyway -- "outperformed" had already been changed when you commented. --Melty girl (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think I agree, Melty. "Outperformed" is a loose cannon of a term, often thrown about by papparazzi and definitely an actor's agent. My suggestion would be something like "In her audition, Watson proved to be an appropriate choice based on efficient acting skills and accurate age and appearance." or something a little less... clinical, maybe? --rm 'w avu 02:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Melon, I don't see anything major I would want to comment on in Indrian's edit, which I think is very good. There are only little things like heading names, paragraph breaks, and minor wording issues, etc. I will wait to see how you incorporate it into the actual article. --Melty girl (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree; I think Indrian's work is good. When you get a chance to update I'll review again too. Mike Christie (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Great, I will take a look this evening after work. --Melty girl (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the word was a problem and I remove my objection as it is now gone - I think "was approved in an audition process involving ___ people" or similar would have been a proper substitution.--Kiyarrllston 23:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, it's an easy fix - both instances removed from the article without damage. Incidentally Melty, is there anything you'd like to comment on from the current version of User:Happy-melon/Emma Watson, before I reorganise it and insert it into the article? Happy‑melon 19:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have gone live with the version cooked up in my sandbox, so I would now appreciate comments and criticisms of this fresh version. Happy‑melon 13:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment -- I have made a few copyedits, and will continue to read over the new version this evening. I expect I will remove my opposition soon. One suggestion: read WP:OVERLINK and remove some of what the policy talks about with linking "plain English words" -- the idea is to link for context to the article's subject, not offer a dictionary function to readers. For example, I just removed links on "grandmother" and "divorce". If readers do actually need to look those words up in the dictionary, they can do that on their own. I think there are other links you could remove below the Early life section, which is as far as I could get for now. --Melty girl (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. There is one more sentence I find objectionable: there is no need for Watson's opinion of her new co-stars in the latest movie, that does not really add anything. I will have to take another careful look tomorrow, but I think that may be the last sentence I have a serious objection to. I am close to being able to support. Indrian (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It doesn't seem like you kept all that much from Indrian's edit, though admittedly, it's hard to keep track at this point. But I saw many trivial things still in the article, so I dove into the Career section, trying to help out with an edit showing you my concerns and reincorporating some of Indrian's edits (though not all). I won't explain everything I did in the edit, since it's somewhat self-evident and goes along with sentiments I've shared before, but here are some notes on my edit (perhaps out of sequence)... Indrian's paragraph about the success of Goblet of Fire simply had more brilliant writing; it better framed events, so I put it back in, with one quote from your version inserted. Sorry, but it is more dull to simply state the year of the film's release and unnecessary to say that Watson reprised her role as Hermione; Indrian's alternative there presented the information in a much stronger way (I'm really surprised you didn't use it). His next paragraph about Phoenix was phrased more forcefully as well; I don't understand why you kept in the trivia about the other actors instead -- we don't need a sentence about what Watson thinks of Staunton and Lynch's peformances; we need to hear about what they (or critics) think of Watson's performance! Also, I think that Indrian's break up of the Career section into subsections made more sense (although I did not like the first section's title). I do not think the casting paragraph deserves to be a section on its own; I did a rearrangement of the section headings. Next, I think the Ballet Shoes section had a great deal of trivial content, though I didn't lose as much of it as Indrian did. Announcement dates of a projects are pretty trivial; what's more important is when something is coming/came out, and possibly when it was filmed -- the ITV detail was trivial too. And much of the casting stuff was also trivial and overly fawning (probably because the source is official publicity, not independent coverage). The casting of such a small project shouldn't be dwelt on over the news of what the project is and how it was received. The fact that it was a TV movie and received poor reviews also means that it should not be overly emphasized in the article, because it is not a major part of her career. I tightened the Despereaux bit too -- again, the announcement date is simply too trivial for mention. The reader will start to get lost in dates, and you want the important dates to be remembered. Above that, you'll see I also removed the bit about her awards panel duty; sorry, but winning an award is notable while giving one once is not. And there are a few other trivial, navel-gazing things I removed, but I did incorporate many things that Indrian's draft removed. Take a look at my edit and see what you think. I also touched up the Personal life section, but the changes are not as significant. I look forward to hearing what you and Indrian think of my changes... I really want to support this article, but I just could not given in the shape it was in, so I spent considerable time trying to help improve it. --Melty girl (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou to everyone for your active assistance on this article, rather than being the all-too-common sit-back-and-expect-results FAC reviewer. I think I like all of your modifications, Melty, with the singular exception of "Harry Potter begins". I don't really see why this can't be left as "Harry Potter casting" or some such. Other than that, great! Happy‑melon 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. You're quite welcome. If these major changes are going to stand, I can support. Perhaps someone can think of a better wording for the idea of "Harry Potter begins" (casting is only the first paragraph). Cheers, Melty girl (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks to Happy-melon for his willingness to compromise and thanks to Melty girl for making the edits that brought the article the final few changes it needed to get over the hump. Things look to be in good shape now. Indrian (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- As I stated twice above, ref 2 is not a reliable source. Please replace this with one that is.
- "Although critics largely turned away from Radcliffe's acting talent, increasingly labeling him as wooden" I'm not sure "turned away" is the best phrase there. Also, are you sure that Radcliffe's performance was that universally panned?
- "2006 found Watson playing Hermione..." I'm not a big fan of the construct, "_year_ found...". It also puts a numeral at the start of the sentence, which looks awkward (next sentence starts with a year too).
- Since I wrote this, I'll chime in. This is a way to vary sentence structure, and it is grammatically correct. Therefore, I don't see a problem. What you are personally not a fan of isn't a make-or-break issue for FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I never said it was a make-or-break issue for FAC. I'm just giving suggestions to improve the article. Of course, anyone's free to ignore these suggestions. A sentence that starts with a numeral should generally be recast. "_year_ found" is an inelegant solution to varying sentence structure...there are better ways to do so. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Since I wrote this, I'll chime in. This is a way to vary sentence structure, and it is grammatically correct. Therefore, I don't see a problem. What you are personally not a fan of isn't a make-or-break issue for FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a way some of the references can be moved to a spot immediately after punctuation? It gets distracting having a blue number in the middle of a sentence. ("the film stars Watson as white-blonde[36] aspiring actress Pauline Fossil," -> "the film stars Watson as white-blonde aspiring actress Pauline Fossil,[36]")
- This seems more like personal preference than a legitimate MOS issue, unless you can point to a guideline that says otherwise. Footnotes should be placed after what they document. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I never said it was a legitimate MOS issue. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm just saying that as a reader, it gets distracting to see numbers in the middle of a sentence not offset by punctuation. And in the example I gave, placing the footnote after the comma is perfectly fine, seeing as how the given source covers everything prior. Moreover, I'm not sure why you're taking such an adversarial tone...
- Done Here I agree with BuddingJournalist, and so I have moved all references to be after punctuation (I think only about three or four were affected). Happy‑melon 16:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, forgot to comment back to BuddingJournalist. I'm not going to respond to each of your responses to me, because they've already been resolved by others. Just wanted to clarify that I did not mean to be overly adversarial anymore than you did when you pointed out your problems with choices made in the article; I simply disagreed with you. More importantly, I never said that you asserted that your comments were based in the MOS. What I was trying to point out was that your personal wording preferences—and some of them certainly were personal preferences rather than true copywriting or MOS problems—are not make or break issues in FAC. The FA criteria is what we're measuring against here, not whether you personally like a grammatically-correct construction like "2005 found Watson..." Different writing styles, many quite effective, abound in a project like Wikipedia. And if the idea being presented is clear, then it ain't broke. That's not to say my writing is perfect; but this is still something to keep in mind at FAC. --Melty girl (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Again, I never said it was a legitimate MOS issue. Why are you putting words in my mouth? I'm just saying that as a reader, it gets distracting to see numbers in the middle of a sentence not offset by punctuation. And in the example I gave, placing the footnote after the comma is perfectly fine, seeing as how the given source covers everything prior. Moreover, I'm not sure why you're taking such an adversarial tone...
- This seems more like personal preference than a legitimate MOS issue, unless you can point to a guideline that says otherwise. Footnotes should be placed after what they document. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- "the eldest of three sisters around whom the story revolves" A bit awkward.
- This phrase is grammatically correct. I see no need to fix it unless you can point out a real problem or a better alternative. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's grammatically correct. However, "around whom the story revolves" is a bit awkward. Also, as it's written, it's unclear whether it's suggesting that the story revolves around the three sisters or the eldest of the three sisters. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it can't be written better.
- "[,]the eldest of three sisters[,] around whom the story revolves" improves it a bit, much better would be "the story revolves around the eldest of three sisters, [...]" even better would be "the story centers on the eldest of three sisters [...]" - Does anyone disagree?--Kiyarrllston 03:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it's grammatically correct. However, "around whom the story revolves" is a bit awkward. Also, as it's written, it's unclear whether it's suggesting that the story revolves around the three sisters or the eldest of the three sisters. Just because a sentence is grammatically correct doesn't mean it can't be written better.
- This phrase is grammatically correct. I see no need to fix it unless you can point out a real problem or a better alternative. --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Watson's next new role is the character of Princess Pea, a starring voice part in animated film The Tale of Despereaux." Awkward sentence in need of fixing.
- This sentence is grammatically correct. Again, can you point out a real problem or a better alternative? --Melty girl (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The last paragraph strays into trivia-territory in my opinion, especially since they're just randomly cobbled together. Some of the facts could be merged elsewhere. How has her self-described "feminism" influenced her take on Hermione? Have Johnny Depp/Julia Roberts influenced her acting style? On the other hand, having a cat named Bubbles and liking France as a holiday destination are quite trivial.
- To strengthen the argument for fair use, the caption of the screenshot should probably mention that this is the scene where she punches Malfoy. BuddingJournalist 22:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The refs that link to specific news items on "Emma Watson's Official Website" no longer work. Presumably, they've changed their URLs since these were last accessed in fall of 2007. BuddingJournalist 23:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Opposebecause of use of fair use image Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg. What's the point? You can't really even make out that it's her, and the fact that (according to the fu rationale) she bleached her hair for the part isn't even mentioned in the article. The scene depicted isn't even mentioned on the article. Totally superfluous image and unnecessary. Same applies to Image:WatsonPoA copy.png, which similarly isn't discussed at all in the text. Totally useless application of fair use images. We already have to free content images on the article showing her appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)- The fact that an actor bleaches their hair for a part is trivial and typical for the profession; that is why another editor and I favored removing a sentence about that. But I think it is entirely useful to see this actor, best known for her role in Harry Potter, performing in a different role, from a different time period, with a different appearance -- so I think the image is valid. I do not know the full scope of your work on Wikipedia, but whenever I've encountered you, you're trying to curb (end?) the fair use of copyrighted images. But fair use has not been eliminated from Wiki yet, so couldn't the rationale simply be worded better? --Melty girl (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep your comments focused on my arguments, rather than questioning me thank you. As to my arguments, I noted that neither image is discussed in the text. Thus, the images are decorative only. There's little point to them. We already know what she looks like (and arguably better) from the two free images on the article, one of which is very high resolution [15]. With Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg, we can't even discern her face. We don't need the two fair use images in this case. I was surprised that Image:EmmaWatsonBalletShoes.jpg was not used in Ballet Shoes (2007 TV film), which has no screenshot. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) The note about Watson bleaching her hair was in the article the last time I read it. I'll readd it if you would like. When choosing the PoA image I deliberately ignored several better-lit moments because this is the scene where she punches Draco. Would you like this to be mentioned in the caption? With regards "you can't really even make out that it's her", there's really very little we can do about this when we are required to use low-resolution images. Despite this, I believe this claim to be somewhat exaggerated - Watson is clearly identifiable from the image, as is her hair. Happy‑melon 19:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- If this be the scene where she punches Draco, then get a screenshot of her punching Draco and discuss the significance of that scene in the text. The image shows three of the characters just standing there, doing nothing. Hardly useful. There's nothing significant about this screenshot. I.e., useless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? An example of what you would like to see in the text would be very useful to me. Happy‑melon 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You say this screenshot is significant because it's from the scene where she punches Draco. Yet, in the screenshot, there's no punching going on. Just three characters standing there. Get a screenshot of the punching actually going on and then discuss the scene and it's significance to the story line in the text (hopefully beyond just plot summary style). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Saying what? I can get an image if you want: it won't be as good because it's a stage punch and it's a fast-moving action shot. But I have no idea what you think the article has to say around it. Happy‑melon 19:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind. I have removed both fair use images. Happy‑melon 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- You say this screenshot is significant because it's from the scene where she punches Draco. Yet, in the screenshot, there's no punching going on. Just three characters standing there. Get a screenshot of the punching actually going on and then discuss the scene and it's significance to the story line in the text (hopefully beyond just plot summary style). --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- What, exactly, is that supposed to mean? An example of what you would like to see in the text would be very useful to me. Happy‑melon 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- If this be the scene where she punches Draco, then get a screenshot of her punching Draco and discuss the significance of that scene in the text. The image shows three of the characters just standing there, doing nothing. Hardly useful. There's nothing significant about this screenshot. I.e., useless. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Objection struck, assuming the images not restored on the same grounds they were previously on the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The fact that an actor bleaches their hair for a part is trivial and typical for the profession; that is why another editor and I favored removing a sentence about that. But I think it is entirely useful to see this actor, best known for her role in Harry Potter, performing in a different role, from a different time period, with a different appearance -- so I think the image is valid. I do not know the full scope of your work on Wikipedia, but whenever I've encountered you, you're trying to curb (end?) the fair use of copyrighted images. But fair use has not been eliminated from Wiki yet, so couldn't the rationale simply be worded better? --Melty girl (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Slight ppose I am not convinced this article should be a FA. Also, you could surely add some pictures from the movie
sshe played in.Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)- Just to let you know, FAC is not a vote. If you have an actionable objection under wikipedia policy or the FA guidelines I invite you to post it so that editors may attempt to address your concerns. Otherwise, I doubt your objection will have any effect. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to the director: Just in case this FAC has gotten too long to read... This FAC, which has been open for 17 days, currently has three supports, while all opposes were addressed and subsequently stricken, except for this new, seemingly unactionable oppose (that ignores the above debate about screenshots, which were all removed to satisfy an anti-fair use editor). I noticed that the nominator is on Wikibreak, so I just wanted to note that all valid opposition has been addressed and reversed. --Melty girl (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- I notice that the director recently promoted 17 articles and this was not one of them. I would hate to see this go down after all the compromise and work that went on here. If the powers that be feel there is still a problem with the article preventing promotion, I would like to know what it is so the final hurdles can be overcome. Indrian (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to the director: Just in case this FAC has gotten too long to read... This FAC, which has been open for 17 days, currently has three supports, while all opposes were addressed and subsequently stricken, except for this new, seemingly unactionable oppose (that ignores the above debate about screenshots, which were all removed to satisfy an anti-fair use editor). I noticed that the nominator is on Wikibreak, so I just wanted to note that all valid opposition has been addressed and reversed. --Melty girl (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just to let you know, FAC is not a vote. If you have an actionable objection under wikipedia policy or the FA guidelines I invite you to post it so that editors may attempt to address your concerns. Otherwise, I doubt your objection will have any effect. Indrian (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I think the article is slight, and fawning in places. Its basically a list of events, and has little insight. For example towards the end it mentions "She calls herself a feminist", and cites this twice, but leaves it hanging with no specifics or substantiation. "has a cat named Bubbles, and lists France as her favourite holiday destination"? Mmm, not very interesting. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- In the first FAC, given the state of the article then, I agreed with your assessment that it was basically a list of events and fawning and had little substance. But I disagree now; now there's critics' opinion of Watson's performances and the place of the HP films in the world of movies has also been added. She's a child star, so I don't think you can expect much more in length because her short career is narrow in scope, and you can't expect anything about her influence or legacy yet. Still, she's a bona fide, if young, movie star, and I think the scope of the article is appropriate and FA is possible for the subject matter. MUCH of the fawning and trivia previously in the article has been removed in a long process of rewriting and compromise (see above). I would be interested to know more specifically what kind of "insight" you think should be added to this article that would make it more fully encyclopedic about Watson.
- Your specific comments relate to two things in the Personal life section. First, as far as I can see, the feminist comment is only there once, not twice; I think it is perfectly appropriate (and common) to state a subject's political orientation in a bio, and that's what this is. There's no need to go on further about it: she states this as her creed, and that's worth including. As for the name of her cat and her holiday destination, you are not the only person who's thought this too trivial. I was on the fence, and saved it because the nominator favors it, and it is the Personal life section after all; but you've convinced me that it should go, so I've removed it. --Melty girl (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I Agree with Ceoil an encyclopedia and a tabloid should have very different kinds of tone - "fawning" is not encyclopedic
- I looked at the sources for the feminist comment "
- PARADE: “I’m a bit of a feminist,” she proclaims. “I’m very competitive and challenging.”" - "a bit of a feminist" is far from "a feminist"
- YOU:""I am such a feminist on this. It drives me nuts when friends say, 'We can't continue because sport gives you muscles and it's so unattractive, and you get sweaty.'" "Feminist on this" is far from "a feminist"
- So... that was wrongly referenced.
- --Kiyarrllston 02:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "fawning." It is not "fawning" to describe someone as either a feminist or not a feminist. Whether the article is fawning has nothing to do with whether it says she is a feminist or not. Second, she's said both that she's a "bit of a feminist" and "such a feminist" -- these two statements have different emphases, but neither contradicts the assertion that "she calls herself a feminist," as the article says. Additionally, her saying, "I'm such a feminist on this," does not preclude the fact that she also is a feminist on other issues; she may or may not be, but it is unmistakeable that she is a feminist in at least some way. Bottom line: the sources do indeed support the statement that "she calls herself a feminist." I think it shows POV to want to strike something like this fact. --Melty girl (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- let's see - if personality is a good thing - and feminism is a personality trait, then to say someone has a personality trait is to say a good thing about them - definition of fawning (from memory): to flatter immensely to the point of ridiculousness
- I don't know if you know what being a feminist is. - It's a political affiliation. And like being a liberal is different from "being a bit liberal" and "being liberal in regards to this" - so the same goes for feminist. Emma Watson's comments do not support the labeling of her as a feminist - being "very competitive" and "sporty" is not being a feminist.
- I hope I was clear, thank you for reading my comment. I very much appreciate your response.
- --Kiyarrllston 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, feminism is not a personality trait. And to many people, terming someone a feminist is an insult. So no, it is absolutely not "fawning" to state, "she calls herself a feminist." About the accuracy of the statement, did she "call herself a feminist"? Absolutely, she did, both "a bit of a" and "such a," both of which are turns of phrase, as in when a fan says, "I'm a bit of fanatic about Harry Potter." You are coming at two clear sources, where Watson voluntarily identifies herself as a feminist, from a POV place. The statement, as written -- "she calls herself a feminist" -- is entirely accurate. --Melty girl (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did you read the sources?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- So - I agree with Ceoil - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras. Rather that she has in interviews used the word "feminist" to describe where she is not a demure fragile female (which both sources note, makes her a lot like hermione) - she is not part of the feminist movement to any stretch.--Kiyarrllston 14:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article does not state that she is a feminist activist. If a public figure refers to themselves as a Catholic or a Jew, or a liberal or a conservative, we don't question them because they don't go to services every week or stump for a campaign -- they stated their beliefs and that's enough to be of interest. The article does not leave us thinking that she "burns bras" -- that is an extremely outdated point of view that you're bringing to the word, but it doesn't represent how the word "feminist" is often currently used. Again, as you did above, you have revealed that you are not clear on what "feminist" means. Artists (and others) refer to themselves as feminists all the time when they are not activists. It often refers to a personal political worldview, not an avocation on its own, and yes, that can include a woman's viewpoint of how she conducts herself in her personal life or beliefs they incorporate in their work. You clearly are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist in both sources. Your POV pushing is unfortunate and seems like an attempt to keep readers from knowing what Emma Watson has said about her worldview. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- This latest comment I did not appreciate. - not "You [...] are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist [...]" and not "Your POV pushing"
I would appreciate knowing Ceoil's opinion on how that section could be improved.
--Kiyarrllston 23:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- This latest comment I did not appreciate. - not "You [...] are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist [...]" and not "Your POV pushing"
- The article does not state that she is a feminist activist. If a public figure refers to themselves as a Catholic or a Jew, or a liberal or a conservative, we don't question them because they don't go to services every week or stump for a campaign -- they stated their beliefs and that's enough to be of interest. The article does not leave us thinking that she "burns bras" -- that is an extremely outdated point of view that you're bringing to the word, but it doesn't represent how the word "feminist" is often currently used. Again, as you did above, you have revealed that you are not clear on what "feminist" means. Artists (and others) refer to themselves as feminists all the time when they are not activists. It often refers to a personal political worldview, not an avocation on its own, and yes, that can include a woman's viewpoint of how she conducts herself in her personal life or beliefs they incorporate in their work. You clearly are not comfortable with the fact that she unmistakeably refers to herself as a feminist in both sources. Your POV pushing is unfortunate and seems like an attempt to keep readers from knowing what Emma Watson has said about her worldview. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, feminism is not a personality trait. And to many people, terming someone a feminist is an insult. So no, it is absolutely not "fawning" to state, "she calls herself a feminist." About the accuracy of the statement, did she "call herself a feminist"? Absolutely, she did, both "a bit of a" and "such a," both of which are turns of phrase, as in when a fan says, "I'm a bit of fanatic about Harry Potter." You are coming at two clear sources, where Watson voluntarily identifies herself as a feminist, from a POV place. The statement, as written -- "she calls herself a feminist" -- is entirely accurate. --Melty girl (talk) 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "fawning." It is not "fawning" to describe someone as either a feminist or not a feminist. Whether the article is fawning has nothing to do with whether it says she is a feminist or not. Second, she's said both that she's a "bit of a feminist" and "such a feminist" -- these two statements have different emphases, but neither contradicts the assertion that "she calls herself a feminist," as the article says. Additionally, her saying, "I'm such a feminist on this," does not preclude the fact that she also is a feminist on other issues; she may or may not be, but it is unmistakeable that she is a feminist in at least some way. Bottom line: the sources do indeed support the statement that "she calls herself a feminist." I think it shows POV to want to strike something like this fact. --Melty girl (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Please review the unresolved external links.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Note: the nominator is on Wiki break for a couple more days. I'm sure the few unresolved links will be promptly addressed then. --Melty girl (talk) 04:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks, struck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Oppose"her academic achievements were good." as in "good vs. evil" or "good vs. bad"- does "exemplary" fit any worse? "pretty"? - why "good" if what is meant is "above average"? why "good" if what is meant is " "were good" according to her mother and father"? - I hope I am clear... It does fit a previous reviewer's comments of "fawning"--Kiyarrllston 01:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Um, the very next two sentences specify exactly what was meant by "good": she was a straight A student by national British standards. I don't really know how the article could get any clearer. Your opposition regarding this point seems baseless. --Melty girl (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is a matter of tone - calling something "good" is not encyclopedic. (- at least as far as I know)
- Saying she was "at the top of her class" (slightly better phrased) would seem to both not repeat the "straight A" comment and keep a [more] encyclopedic tone.
- Thank you for responding.
- --Kiyarrllston 02:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Terming a grade A student's grades "good" is hardly fawning; "brilliant," "whipsmart" or "top of her class" are what I'd call fawning. "Good" is merely accurate; straight As certainly constitute academic achievements that are "good" by the very standard of the grading system! And since when is the modest, accurately employed adjective "good" inappropriate for an enyclopedia? This is a very odd, if not wholly inaccurate, reason to oppose. --Melty girl (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me first state - if it is "a very odd, if not wholly innacurate, reason to oppose" from your point of view, you should at least know that I do not agree
- not fawning?- I do call it vague, and did call it (once again) not an encyclopedic tone.
- I was hoping that "top of her class" was verifiable information whereas "her academic achievements are good" is not verifiable and will never be.
- the prasing of "top of her class" is not the best - I agree - thus I said- "slighly" better phrasing-
- Thank you for reading this comment
- --Kiyarrllston 03:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is reliably sourced that her grades were straight A's. A's are the best grade you can get, as far as I know. The best grades you can get in a national education system = "good" academic achievement (if not "excellent"!). It's verified, period -- I don't know how you can dispute that. I find your logic incomprehensible. Sorry, Melty girl (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen elsewhere where something is called "good" in wikipedia? or "best"? or "pretty" or "ugly"?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it happens all the time. Superlatives are not a problem if the statement is sourced. For example Æthelbald of Mercia uses "most powerful" and "most formidable"; these superlatives are supported by the source material. I agree with Melty girl here; this is sufficiently sourced and there is nothing wrong with the tone. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Most powerful" or "most formidable" are different - refer to a kind of power or size - both would be more encyclopedic than "were good" or (the example) "were the best" or "were pretty". Saying Elvis was "the best musician or that "his records were good" - then referencing with his record sales - is not encyclopedic. The word "good" is not very encyclopedic.
- The sentence - "her academic achievements were good" is an arbitrary judgement of quality on her studies, not an example of very good writing either, furthermore is later repeated in a better form( -"straight A"). I suggest removal of that phrase, I believe the paragraph flows much better without it. If others do not judge her achievements -"straight A"- as anything (good, bad, ugly, strange) then we need not tell them what to think.
- --Kiyarrllston 14:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grades are measured on a scale, from good to bad. Grades are inherently a judgment of good to bad. Your comment that we are telling people what to think is absurd. --Melty girl (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, it happens all the time. Superlatives are not a problem if the statement is sourced. For example Æthelbald of Mercia uses "most powerful" and "most formidable"; these superlatives are supported by the source material. I agree with Melty girl here; this is sufficiently sourced and there is nothing wrong with the tone. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Have you seen elsewhere where something is called "good" in wikipedia? or "best"? or "pretty" or "ugly"?--Kiyarrllston 13:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is reliably sourced that her grades were straight A's. A's are the best grade you can get, as far as I know. The best grades you can get in a national education system = "good" academic achievement (if not "excellent"!). It's verified, period -- I don't know how you can dispute that. I find your logic incomprehensible. Sorry, Melty girl (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Terming a grade A student's grades "good" is hardly fawning; "brilliant," "whipsmart" or "top of her class" are what I'd call fawning. "Good" is merely accurate; straight As certainly constitute academic achievements that are "good" by the very standard of the grading system! And since when is the modest, accurately employed adjective "good" inappropriate for an enyclopedia? This is a very odd, if not wholly inaccurate, reason to oppose. --Melty girl (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- ←I have reworded this phrase - please let me know whether you think it is an acceptable alteration. Happy‑melon 21:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um, the very next two sentences specify exactly what was meant by "good": she was a straight A student by national British standards. I don't really know how the article could get any clearer. Your opposition regarding this point seems baseless. --Melty girl (talk) 01:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Objection tabloid/fawning tone
- the last sentence, where it says "Watson lists her interests as dancing, singing, field hockey, tennis and art,[7] and describes herself as a feminist.[10][46] She admires fellow actors Johnny Depp and Julia Roberts"
I echo Ceoil's thoughts on this. I believe that this can be improved through elaborating as to what she has done in "dancing" (twice participated in Rock ___ at her school?) and so on. "Feminist" seems to have different meanings to different people - is she pro-choice in the abortion debate? does she believe strongly in equal participation in the workplace? does she believe in topfree equality? - the article should not leave us thinking that she burns bras.
Thank you,
Kiyarrllston
[Message posted at 01:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)]
-
- Comment: I see absolutely no reason to think that feminism "seems to have different meanings to different people" -- you are just not grasping the true definition. A feminist is someone who believes in equal rights for both men and women. What you are describing, Dwarf Kirlston, are examples of common feminist causes, which cover a wide spectrum and is surely subjective depending on the individual or group he/she belongs to. The fact that Watson believes herself to be a feminist, period, is clear and properly sourced. From what I gather, Watson has not described in full what her feminist beliefs entail and therefore they (the beliefs) cannot be added. María (habla conmigo) 13:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with JayHenry (below) that Watson need not go into a long explanation of the particulars of her feminist beliefs in order for her self-identification as a feminist to be included in the article. If an American actor says that she's a Democrat, do we keep this out of the article unless she gives a full explanation of whether she's a liberal Democrat or a new Democrat, and which policies she supports and which she doesn't? Jake Gyllenhaal identifies as Jewish, and it was noted in his article last time I checked, but the article didn't need to specify his affiliation or non-affiliation, or report which tenets he believes in, etc. It just states how he says he identifies. I suspect that he doesn't go to services often, if at all -- should his identification as Jewish therefore be removed from the article? No. To say that we can't write that Emma Watson says that she's a feminist because she didn't explain herself to our satisfaction exerts POV. She said it, in the way she chose to say it, on more than one occasion, and it's fully sourced, and therefore we can report it. I thought we were trying to keep insight into who she is in this article! --Melty girl (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there's been a misunderstanding. Just to be clear, I agree with Melty girl and JayHenry in regards to this silliness about elaboration of Watson's "brand" of feminism. Obviously, what has not been stated (i.e. what her feminist beliefs entail) cannot be added to the article because as far as we're concerned, they don't exist. I support the addition of her describing herself as a feminist because it is sourced and I do not believe any other explanation is needed. She describes herself as a feminist, so there it is; if one connects that with bra burning, that is their own (outdated) misinterpretation. María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I get you now! Thanks for the clarification. I thought you had been agreeing with Ceoil's comment that somehow it wasn't "substantiated," and thus could not be added. --Melty girl (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I believe there's been a misunderstanding. Just to be clear, I agree with Melty girl and JayHenry in regards to this silliness about elaboration of Watson's "brand" of feminism. Obviously, what has not been stated (i.e. what her feminist beliefs entail) cannot be added to the article because as far as we're concerned, they don't exist. I support the addition of her describing herself as a feminist because it is sourced and I do not believe any other explanation is needed. She describes herself as a feminist, so there it is; if one connects that with bra burning, that is their own (outdated) misinterpretation. María (habla conmigo) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with JayHenry (below) that Watson need not go into a long explanation of the particulars of her feminist beliefs in order for her self-identification as a feminist to be included in the article. If an American actor says that she's a Democrat, do we keep this out of the article unless she gives a full explanation of whether she's a liberal Democrat or a new Democrat, and which policies she supports and which she doesn't? Jake Gyllenhaal identifies as Jewish, and it was noted in his article last time I checked, but the article didn't need to specify his affiliation or non-affiliation, or report which tenets he believes in, etc. It just states how he says he identifies. I suspect that he doesn't go to services often, if at all -- should his identification as Jewish therefore be removed from the article? No. To say that we can't write that Emma Watson says that she's a feminist because she didn't explain herself to our satisfaction exerts POV. She said it, in the way she chose to say it, on more than one occasion, and it's fully sourced, and therefore we can report it. I thought we were trying to keep insight into who she is in this article! --Melty girl (talk) 20:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Let me speak as to what I understand to be her "feminist beliefs": She has said she is "a bit feminist" explaining that she is "very competitive and challenging." -She has also said that she is "such a feminist" regarding whether girls should play sports. ONLY regarding whether girls should play sports. We have only that she has said that she is "a bit feminist" not that she has said she is a feminist.
-
- If a person said they are democrat, then I hope that at least there is some comment as to under what meaning this is
- If a person said they're a democrat, then, explaining, says "I am very against the Iraq War" - that would serve as something to put next to Jake Gyllenhaal's Jewishness.
- --Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have no idea what your second sentence means. --Melty girl (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "Lists her interests as" is something that would be included in a tabloid, not in an encyclopedia.
- --Kiyarrllston 21:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to note that I fully support Melty Girl and Maria's position vis the feminism statement. However, rereading that particular phrase it strikes me that it would improve the flow of the paragraph if the assertion was converted to a quotation, which I have now done. Please let me know if you think this new version is acceptable. With reference the "lists her interests as...", yes, I agree it is something that would be included in a tabloid. This does not, in and of itself, make it unworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Why, exactly, it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article which is not constrained by limitations on ink, paper or storage space? I do not deny that Brittanica would not include it, but Brittanica editors have brutal space restrictions to accomodate to. If it were necessary to reduce this article to half its original size of course the phrase would not make the cut, but fortunately it is not necessary to do so. It is appropriately sourced, it is verifiable, it is neutral, stable and not tangential to the subject. It is well structured, uses appropriate grammar, syntax, and style, and provides information which may be of interest to some readers without being biased. In short, what, precisely, is wrong with it? Happy‑melon 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest "describes herself as "a bit of a feminist" [saying "I am very challenging and competitive"]" - I believe that serves to clarify, elaborate, explain that "feminism" of hers. Hanging sentences are not good writing.
- I believe the reason they wouldn't include it is not lack of space - lack of relevance, meaning, among other things instead. but more importantly they would include it if it was relevant, meaningful - how is it meaningful that those are her interests? - has she done anything regarding those interests? furthermore I believe the phrase "lists her interests" is specifically unencyclopedic tone. This is not a fan encyclopedia, this is not her personal website - I believe that expression is warranted.
- --Kiyarrllston 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to note that I fully support Melty Girl and Maria's position vis the feminism statement. However, rereading that particular phrase it strikes me that it would improve the flow of the paragraph if the assertion was converted to a quotation, which I have now done. Please let me know if you think this new version is acceptable. With reference the "lists her interests as...", yes, I agree it is something that would be included in a tabloid. This does not, in and of itself, make it unworthy for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Why, exactly, it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia article which is not constrained by limitations on ink, paper or storage space? I do not deny that Brittanica would not include it, but Brittanica editors have brutal space restrictions to accomodate to. If it were necessary to reduce this article to half its original size of course the phrase would not make the cut, but fortunately it is not necessary to do so. It is appropriately sourced, it is verifiable, it is neutral, stable and not tangential to the subject. It is well structured, uses appropriate grammar, syntax, and style, and provides information which may be of interest to some readers without being biased. In short, what, precisely, is wrong with it? Happy‑melon 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sources more readily support that she is like hermione than that she is a feminist to any extent. In fact, the "a bit feminist" is only used to elaborate on that.--Kiyarrllston 13:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- The previous FAC effectively drowned in discussions to the effect that any direct comparison between Watson and Hermione Granger was inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. Please read the previous FAC thoroughly and tell me if you still think this is a good idea. Happy‑melon 14:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that graphics, including coloured ticks and crosses, are discouraged in the instructions for this process. Tony (talk) 13:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support with thoughts. Kudos to Happy Melon for keeping cool in what's been a mostly impossible FAC process. (Most amusing is the exchange above where one editor demands the fair use images be taken out and the next day a different editor says "it would be nice to have some screen shots from her movies." It is really unfortunate to our editors that the system is such that these impossibilities arise.) Okay, Watson describes herself as a feminist -- that's just fine. It's saying she identifies with the label. An actress doesn't need to write a graduate thesis elaborating her precise views on feminism to identify as a feminist, or for us to mention this identification. Three thoughts on improvement 1) User:Ceoil so accurately mentions there could be more insight. Sadly, although much effort went into this compromised version it stripped the article of some of that insight. I won't object on this ground because I don't wish to prolong this now-unhelpful FAC. 2) In cases where it mentions the films broke records, I would like it to be a bit clearer precisely what record was broken. With many of the film statistics I'm not sure if it's global, US or both. I think this should always be explicit. 3) The first time that the Otto Awards are mentioned it would be good to explain what this award is, especially since there's no article and she's won a handful of them over the years. --JayHenry (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll support when it's fixed up properly. Random issues suggest that a good massage is required. For example:
- Space before three ellipsis dots (Pauline and others).
- "USA" is laboured nowadays: US?
- "outside of"—remove the second word, always.
- Ref 31 used to support a breach of copyright in the main text. The site says "data cannot be published or posted elsewhere without the expressed permission of Box Office Mojo. To publish or use the stats for professional purposes, please inquire at info@boxofficemojo.com." Have you done so? Remove immediately, please, or find another reference. And in any case, who's the author of the web page, and should we trust it?
- "the pluses outweighed the minuses."—See MOS on logical punctuation at end of quotations.
- "a four-year old son"—hyphen missing. Tony (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have done all bar the Mojo ref. Correct me if I'm genuinely wrong, but my interpretation of copyright law in this instance is "tough". "333 million" is not copyrightable, either as a number of a sum of money. The fact that HP5 earnt $333 million" is also not copyrightable, as it is common knowledge and does not represent intellectual work by anyone. The intellectual effort expended by Box Office Mojo to compile that list of top films is copyrightable, as it represents intellectual work for which they should be rewarded with exclusive use. If we were to copy that table in whole or in part, to the extent that we threatened to create a rival source of information on top grossing films, we would be infringing their copyright. Even claiming that HP5 was the third highest-grossing film of all time would be on dodgy ground using that as a reference. But they cannot deny us the right to use the statistic "$333 million", as it is not their right to give or take. Happy‑melon 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's good that you're cautious, Happy-melon, but you can go ahead and take out the copyright notice. It's not needed in a situation like this, where you're just quoting one of their figures. If copyright notices were needed we'd have to apply them anytime we report any list, such as New York Times Bestsellers, or #1 Billboard single, etc. You can simply remove the notice. Also, for what it's worth Boxofficemojo is considered reliable within the industry. It's commonly used by American newspapers as authoritative. --JayHenry (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have done all bar the Mojo ref. Correct me if I'm genuinely wrong, but my interpretation of copyright law in this instance is "tough". "333 million" is not copyrightable, either as a number of a sum of money. The fact that HP5 earnt $333 million" is also not copyrightable, as it is common knowledge and does not represent intellectual work by anyone. The intellectual effort expended by Box Office Mojo to compile that list of top films is copyrightable, as it represents intellectual work for which they should be rewarded with exclusive use. If we were to copy that table in whole or in part, to the extent that we threatened to create a rival source of information on top grossing films, we would be infringing their copyright. Even claiming that HP5 was the third highest-grossing film of all time would be on dodgy ground using that as a reference. But they cannot deny us the right to use the statistic "$333 million", as it is not their right to give or take. Happy‑melon 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: There's a strange inconsistency in the citations: part of the periodical names are italicized and part aren't (see WP:ITALICS). The easiest way to consistently italicize all newspaper and magazine names is to use the Work parameter instead of the Publisher parameter in the cite templates (Work is italicized). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find that this produces an unwanted inconsistency whereby sources such as the BBC use {{cite news}} with the
|publisher=parameter, while print sources use {{cite news}} with the|work=field, even though both are clearly "published" rather than "worked on". It's more consistent to simply remember to italicise published works - I have been through the references and I think I've done this thoroughly. Happy‑melon 09:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)- I was not aware that the BBC was a periodical; do I miss something? Newspapers, magazines, and journals (periodicals) are italicized. Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Missing publishers: Bravo Otto – Sieger 2003 (German). Retrieved on September 22, 2007. and Bravo Otto Awards 2005 (German). Retrieved on September 13, 2007 (one of them appears to need cite press release). What makes this reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed both of those. Vis the Dannielradcliffe.com ref, I would link directly to the Bravo pages mentioned in the article, but we're not allowed to. Anyone who follows the reference through that page to the original source material (and can read German) will see it's correct - it's just a shame we can't do that ourselves. Happy‑melon 19:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- Missing publishers: Bravo Otto – Sieger 2003 (German). Retrieved on September 22, 2007. and Bravo Otto Awards 2005 (German). Retrieved on September 13, 2007 (one of them appears to need cite press release). What makes this reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was not aware that the BBC was a periodical; do I miss something? Newspapers, magazines, and journals (periodicals) are italicized. Has Tony been asked to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- I find that this produces an unwanted inconsistency whereby sources such as the BBC use {{cite news}} with the
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 03:17, 24 January 2008.
[edit] Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C.
Self nomination I've spent quite a bit of time knocking this article into shape, following the model of existings FAs Margate F.C. and Leek Town F.C. and I now think it's ready for FA status....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Note the team group photo has been flagged up as possibly unfree as, although it is tagged {{self|GFDL-no-disclaimers|cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} , it can also be found on the supporters' club website. I've sent an email to the supporters' club's contact address requesting confirmation that that they did indeed upload it themselves and do hold the copyright but if confirmation can't be obtained then I will remove the image, I don't believe this would significantly detract from the quality of the article...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)- Speaking of images, the line art in this article (team logos and graphs) was uploaded in the JPEG format, which makes it look bad and scale worse. I've tagged the affected ones with {{BadJPEG}}. — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not very good with image formats - what would be the best format for them to be in.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- SVG would be ideal, because they could then be scaled to any size. This should be possible for the graphs since you created them, but it is sometimes hard to find vector versions of copyrighted/trademarked artwork. For those, PNG is usually best if a vector version can't be found. It's important that you don't simply convert the JPEGs into these formats, though; Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload is a good page to read for the pros and cons of the various image formats. — brighterorange (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given that the only image manipulation software I have on either my home or work PCs is MS Paint, all of the above could prove quite tricky, but I'll try and find someone who has access to something more sophisticated...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- After much aggro all "bad" JPGs have now been replaced with PNGs/SVGs ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Given that the only image manipulation software I have on either my home or work PCs is MS Paint, all of the above could prove quite tricky, but I'll try and find someone who has access to something more sophisticated...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- SVG would be ideal, because they could then be scaled to any size. This should be possible for the graphs since you created them, but it is sometimes hard to find vector versions of copyrighted/trademarked artwork. For those, PNG is usually best if a vector version can't be found. It's important that you don't simply convert the JPEGs into these formats, though; Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload is a good page to read for the pros and cons of the various image formats. — brighterorange (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not very good with image formats - what would be the best format for them to be in.......? ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of images, the line art in this article (team logos and graphs) was uploaded in the JPEG format, which makes it look bad and scale worse. I've tagged the affected ones with {{BadJPEG}}. — brighterorange (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Most of it seems great. The only thing I'd say is the lead only refers to what is mentioned in the history section but nothing else. Once that and the images are sorted out I can't see anything to stop me supporting it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've made some changes and the lead now covers the history, colours, stadium, statistics and honours sections. Players and managers are probably too transitory to mention in the lead so I think that's probably everything covered - what do you think? As and when I can get the images sorted out (with a bit of luck a friend of mine can sort this out for me over the weekend......) I'll let you know ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I really like this article. I think it's ready. Great job ChrisTheDude, JACOPLANE • 2008-01-5 22:38
- Comment the reference for the ground capacity says 3,500. Yet the article says 3,000. Is there a reason for the difference or is it simply an oversight? Peanut4 (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just a typo on my part, now corrected ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support With all those tiny things amended this is a nice little entry. Well referenced, good images and concise and thorough in its detail. Peanut4 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - I've made a number of comments on the article's talk page which I'd like to see resolved (or at least discussed!) before I can support. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support all my issues addressed, good work Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support tweaked a bit. over the line. goal. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - doing a mild copyedit. Please add details about ground capacity to the section about the Stadium. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments Ah... two more things. There's an inconsistency between the team nickname being "The Steels" or "Steels". If both are acceptable, just say so. Which leads me to suggest that the nickname is dealt with in the main text, not just the infobox. Also, the image of trophies is somewhat puzzling - the article records only 1 trophy won by the club that season, so what are all of the others? --Dweller (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The other trophies are youth/reserve cups. I'll change the image caption to make this clear, and also address the nickname issue.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done I've referenced the team's nickname being given both with and without the definite article in the "colours and crest" section because, erm, I couldn't think of any other section it would fit into..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The other trophies are youth/reserve cups. I'll change the image caption to make this clear, and also address the nickname issue.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good, follows the general conventions of FOOTY. The prose is good, and seems to be well referenced. The dead external link needs to be sorted though; (Attendances - Northern Premier League Division One. Tony's English Football Site. Retrieved on 2007-12-18.) Woody (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support yet another great work by ChrisTheDude. Well-referenced, correctly styled and with nicely readable prose. In my opinion, ready for promotion. --Angelo (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] 1983 Atlantic hurricane season
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel its ready. It passed its Good Article Nomination in February 2007, abandoned for a while, and finished mainly by me in November/December. Its detailed in all sections and apparently the 5th FAC for a Tropical cyclone article.Mitch32contribs 02:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose: the prose is excellent, but there isn't the bibliography, fundamental for a featured article. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 08:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- What bibliography's missing, other than not citated link?Mitch32contribs 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, it has a reference section, which passes FA criterion 2c. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bibliography... books... ISBN... author... for a major study-depth. When you'll find these things, call me. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Brískelly, could you please tell us which one of the Featured article criteria you feel this article does not meet? It's not clear to me (or several others, it seems) to which criterion your statements refer. This may cause your opposition to be judged as inactionable, and therefore invalid according to the instructions at the top of the page. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Bibliography... books... ISBN... author... for a major study-depth. When you'll find these things, call me. --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, it has a reference section, which passes FA criterion 2c. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- What bibliography's missing, other than not citated link?Mitch32contribs 13:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I added a Further reading section, if that's what you want. None of my references are books anyway.Mitch32contribs 17:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Excellent prose. One good thing to see is this has not been hurried, its been worked on slowly. References are great, no reason to oppose. Qst 20:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please archive the peer review. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Mitch32contribs 11:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
*Could you please source the following sentence in the predictions section.
"However, the predictions proved to be too high, with only four named storms forming by the end of the season and three of those reaching hurricane status." Seddon69 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
:Can you go through the article and ensure that all units have metric conversions, and also check for non-breaking spaces. Some examples are:
"..60 African systems.." things like this needs a non breaking space"category 3" needs to have a nb space between the word and the category value Seddon69 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)- Support I believe that this article is ready now for FA. Well written, is well sourced, complies with MOSNUM, Good lead and is a notable season. Seddon69 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It looks good for the most part, but what is this? The system that would become Hurricane Alicia originated formed on the western end of a frontal trough that stretched form New England to the Gulf of Mexico. Juliancolton (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support It looks good. I can't see anything wrong. Juliancolton (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- Please include a citation in the ACE section for the fact that is the lease active season on record since 1914.
DoneMitch32contribs 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Newspaper names should be italicized in the references (you can use {{citation|newspaper=}}
DoneMitch32contribs 15:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Karanacs (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] Alpha Kappa Alpha
I have worked on this article for about a year. The relevant list of members is a featured list, see List of Alpha Kappa Alpha sisters. I think this article would be excellent to be featured on Wikipedia, especially since AKA's centennial is coming up in January 15. The article failed GA twice because of some sources being only from the AKA book. However, other editors have came and added sources from different books. If other editors don't think this is up to FA par, please leave suggestions here, and I will address them in order to bring this up to FA. Thanks. miranda 09:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Still veryWeak SupportOppose (but nearly-there-need-to-tweak-a-few-things-very-sorry-honestly-want-article-to-pass-but...)for now. I am really sorry but here are some examples below. The frequency I am finding things in the first few paras leads me to think I'll find many more. If you want I can go through and try to fix some stuff later.I appreciate you've done alot of work and it's an interesting subject and I'll try to do what I can to get it nearer the finish line. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
OK - I am satisfied you're into the 'credit' side of things than the 'debit'...still feel the text could do with a little tweaking but I can't see anything that sticks out. I'll see what else I can find later. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
one-third of 1%- eek! why not 0.3% - I know we say it like the former but looks really odd written.
Done - fixed miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The founders were the leaders of their generation at college and afterward, as they proceeded to accomplish many firsts.- erm, 'founders' looks a bit odd as it is repeated from 2 sentences beforehand. Also, adding some 'firsts' would be good as it really just hangs in the air how it is.- Done I changed this, and merged the two sentences. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The leadership the sixteen exhibited in setting up the sorority has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years. - is this what you mean -the leadership created the capital or is it the sorority. Currently the sentence indicates the former but it sounds funny.
- Done I didn't add that someone else did. But, I fixed the sentence. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
have led education of generations- why not just 'educated'?- Done Some, but not many AKAs, are not teachers. So, in this case it would be led. However, I changed the text to say "formed educational initiatives" miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
centennial anniversary- I'd use 'centenary' instead.- Done miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
:Beginning in Spring 1907 - 'From Spring 1907' is simpler
-
- Done Beginning taken out. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually I can see some issues as words are repeated quite often. You need to try and reduce this without making ambiguity. eg. ...future husband George Lyle. Lyle was a.. , Sorority mentioned too many times in 2nd paragraph of Beginnings: 1907–1912
-
- Done Lyle, who was a charter member of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's Beta chapter at Howard in 1907. miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't add that. Someone else did. I will fix that. Also, I don't want it "near the finish line", I want it "at or past the finish line". XD miranda 17:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Looking alot better - now this sentence:
-
To expand the sorority at Howard, new members were initiated.- seems to just sit there and add to repetition. Can it be removed or merged into the next a bit?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)- Alpha Kappa Alpha continued to grow at Howard. miranda 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- "establish a national organization, enlarge the scope of activities of the sorority, change its name and symbols, and be more politically oriented." - surely this can be rephrased without quotation marks, it isn't asif the exact words are memorable. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- The words are memorable, because that's what the group of twenty-two wanted to do in order to separate and form Delta Sigma Theta. I took the quotes out. miranda 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::...adding their support to a major issue of the day. - looks vague. Specifying the issue or rephrasing with previouis bit about the March would read better.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- AKAs didn't participate in the march. I took this out. miranda 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
::The sorority continued to grow in membership with additional resources. - what resources? Needs explanation. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Financial resources. Yet, I deleted this sentence. miranda 05:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- In summer 1935, Ida Jackson focused on addressing the region's poverty and established a health clinic. - erm, the bolded part comes across as vague and wordy. Maybe best removed or worded differently (?) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- MegasuperarcistraextraSupport :)--Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Contribs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose It looks like a lot of work has been put into this article, but I think it needs quite a bit more to be FA status. First and foremost, it needs a thorough copyedit from an uninterested party. Part of the article reads a touch more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia to me and I see a lot of WP:PROSELINE. You might want to contact the League of Copyeditors. Here are some other specific issues that need to be addressed.
Last sentence of first paragraph of lead is very unwieldy
- Alpha Kappa Alpha's document and pictorial archives are located at Moorland-Spingarn Research Center and is part of the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC). The current International President is Barbara A. McKinzie. - fixed
- Wrong sentence -- I was referring to the first paragraph of the lead - "Being students at one of the top two historically black institutions in the nation at a time when only 0.3% of African Americans attended college, the founders and incorporators accomplished and broke many barriers"
- Done I deleted this sentence. miranda 17:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Wrong sentence -- I was referring to the first paragraph of the lead - "Being students at one of the top two historically black institutions in the nation at a time when only 0.3% of African Americans attended college, the founders and incorporators accomplished and broke many barriers"
-
- Lead references "According to Brown" without mentioning who that is; same problem when referring to "Giddings" - the first time the article needs to say who that is (at the very least include the first name)
- Done According to Delta Sigma Theta historian Paula Giddings, the group of members wanted to establish a national organization, enlarge the scope of activities of the sorority, change its name and symbols, and be more politically oriented.
-
Please see WP:DASH - should never have an mdash with spaces around it
- Done Fixed. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Is it necessary to point out when the centenary is when the foundation date is already in the lead?
-
- first paragraph of history section concerns
-
-
Did Ethel Robinson and Ethel Hedgeman share an experience in a sorority at Brown University, or was Ethel Robinson relating her experiences to Hedgeman?- Fixed. A Howard faculty member, Ethel Robinson, encouraged Hedgeman and shared her Brown University sorority experiences. miranda 06:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Done miranda 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- What did Ethel Robinson do in the spring to lead the effort to create it if she began recruiting in summer of 1907? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- She shared the idea with Ethel Hedgeman to form a sorority? If you are referring to Ethel Hedgeman, she recruited members and designed the constitution. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, I meant the other Ethel. The paragraph says that she didn't begin recruiting until summer, so there is no information on what efforts she led in the spring.
- She shared the idea with Ethel Hedgeman to form a sorority? If you are referring to Ethel Hedgeman, she recruited members and designed the constitution. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- What did Ethel Robinson do in the spring to lead the effort to create it if she began recruiting in summer of 1907? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Done There weren't any efforts that she led AKA in the spring. There isn't any information concerning that. Maybe they were studying? miranda 16:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I recommend removing the dates from the history section headings. It looks odd that there is no section for 1913–1920, etc.
-
- I fixed the 1913-1920 gap. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is there a reason that any of the dates need to stay? Usually dates aren't included in the headings. 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I fixed the 1913-1920 gap. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Not done Yes, the dates need to stay in order to navigate the periods of the sorority. Again, see another featured article, Alpha Phi Alpha which does the same thing. miranda 17:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I recommend combining the first two sections of the history section as they are both fairly small and are both concerned with the efforts to get the sorority firmly established
Not done again, they deal with two different concepts. miranda 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Can you explain what a Boule' is for those of us who are not/were not involved in Greek life?
- The Boulé is the regulating institution of the sorority and currently meets every two years.[1] ? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Not done No, not really. The Boule is a part of membership in the sorority. It's better suited in membership. miranda 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I will put a sentence which describes the Boule, then link it to the section.
Alpha Kappa Alpha began to unite members at the annual Boulé, the sorority's governing body. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
The first sentence in the first paragraph of the Expansion... section seems to have little to do with the rest of its paragraph.
- The Expansion... section does not flow well.
- Need non-breaking spaces between numbers and their units/qualifiers
- Please provide an example. miranda 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
"Throughout the 1950s and 1970s"...did nothing happen in the 1960s?
- Yes, see 1964. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- A lot of the history section reads more like proseline -a list of events in prose.
- I haven't seen a lot of effort put into fixing this. Have you thought about finding an unrelated copyeditor yet? Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I filed a request with the copyeditors two weeks ago, and they haven't responded. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
There seems to be text missing in the paragraph about the deaths of High and Saafir
- Like? miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- All full dates need to be wikilinked so that date preferences will work.
-
- Done I think I fully linked the dates. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- There should not be a template in the middle of the article. The International Presidents section should be removed and the template moved to the bottom of hte article.
- Not really, see Alpha Phi Alpha, another featured article. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- From WP:Template namespace, Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done I added text to this section. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Adding text doesn't remove the fact that the template is acting as article content, which is not the intent of a template. 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- From WP:Template namespace, Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
(reduce indent) Again, there is a summary before the template, which isn't presented in Alpha Phi Alpha, a featured article. I don't have time to list the presidents. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The Boule section is much too short to be a full section, and section headers should not begin with "the"
- Fixed. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Um, it looks the same as it did. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Um, I fixed it to just saying "Boule". The section had a table, but due to concerns on the talk page, the table was taken out. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still think the section is much too short to stand on its own, and that the first sentence which describes what a Boule is should be earlier in the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, not really. The Boule should be separated, since it is the governing body of the sorority. The section had a table before, but the information is separated into a different article. miranda 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I still think the section is much too short to stand on its own, and that the first sentence which describes what a Boule is should be earlier in the article. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Um, it looks the same as it did. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Per WP:EL, there should not be external links in the body of the article (see Regions)
-
-
-
- Done I deleted the EL. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Quotes should be better incorporated into the text (Linda Evans and Laura Bush quotes especially)
- Done miranda 01:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's another quote, by Barbara K. Phillips, which is offset and shouldn't be (see WP:MOSQUOTE)
- Done Incorporated and fixed. miranda 00:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- There's another quote, by Barbara K. Phillips, which is offset and shouldn't be (see WP:MOSQUOTE)
-
- Image captions should only end with a period if it is a full sentence.
- Done Fixed. miranda 17:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
I don't believe the Women in Medicine pamphlet image can be used under fair-use rules. The guidelines state that the particular pamphlet pictured must be discussed in the article, and I don't believe it is.
- It's a part of the The Heritage Series'. So, it meets WP:FAIR. miranda 06:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- The Fair Use licensing for that image specifically states "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." The book in question (in the picture) is "Women in Medicine", which is not discussed in the article. Therefore, I don't think it falls under fair use. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
-
Do you have information about how quickly the sorority spread? Where was the second chapter located? When did it spread outside the US?
- No, the second chapter is located in Chicago area. I thought that would be too trivial. miranda 06:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful at the very least to tell which year a second chapter opened so that readers can judge when the sorority began to expand. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Done Alpha Kappa Alpha continued to grow nationally. A second chapter at the University of Chicago in was chartered in fall 1913.[1] miranda 00:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it would be useful at the very least to tell which year a second chapter opened so that readers can judge when the sorority began to expand. Karanacs (talk) 15:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry it took me a while to come back; I've struck a few comments and left a few more up there. Please note that although there are a few MOS issues that definitely need to be fixed, my biggest worry is the prose. I think this article fails 1a of the criteria and needs a thorough copyedit. Karanacs (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Since I'm not an expert in fair use rules, I left a question at Fair use review about the appropriateness of the image of the "Women in Medicine" pamphlet. When the question is answered there I will update here. Karanacs (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- See above. miranda
Support
- I strongly support making this article a FA. Also, this article should be featured on 1/15/08. HistoricDST 17:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Anthøny 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I also support this article to be FA and the possibily to be featured on January 15, 2008. Thanks to everyone who helped. It looks great. Thanks especially to HistoricDST for support. Miranda has done a GREAT job!LivelyIvy1908 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Great job well done. Wasn't this an FA already? Maybe not then. :P Rudget. 20:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support I strongly support this article to be an FA, the article is well written, detailed and very informational about an organization that has thrived for a century. Please make it an FA by January, 15 (the actually anniversary) Knicksfan4ever 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - An excellent article which I think meets the criteria. While it won't make the 15th, it will be close. James086Talk | Email 14:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- While I know for certain this article will not be featured tomorrow, I think the article will be stable after this week, because the celebrations would be over. If vandalism gets bad tomorrow, I think we should semi-protect the article. miranda 18:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll jump to the bottom here:
*Alpha Kappa Alpha has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years. - surely this can be worded better - sounds like a political speech. I know what you're trying to say and can be said better. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Changed to Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- ..have formed educational initiatives for generations - the same - promoted education? created and run educational programs? something more concrete. I hate the word 'initiative' as it reminds me of a bureaucrat trying to appease the public/media/etc. without actually doing anything.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done changed to have improved education through independent initiatives miranda 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
..contributed overseas - more concrete - need to contribute to something, or write 'funded' x.
- Done Soon after the sorority's 75th anniversary, Alpha Kappa Alpha contributed funds to decrease Africa's poverty with the establishment of African Village Development Program (AVDP). miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
..20,000 third graders who were at-risk - need to define at-risk
- Done who were at-risk of failing their education. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The title - Bridging Towards the Twenty-first Century: 1980–2007 - if there isn't a specific reason for the phrase it should be removed. I can't see what it is relevant to cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I made the title, because this was the last decade of the twentieth century. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll get another opiniion and if others are happy I'll concede my point. We are nearly over the finish line and the article is looking lots better.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can help. I'll do some copy-editing, but will try to bring any potentially contentious issues here. Similarly, if I change anything that introduces error, feel free to revert, but please do discuss it here afterward. --Dweller (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"...is the first" makes it seem as if there are still no others. I'm not sure how to fix this, as the natural change to "was the first" makes it sound as if it is defunct. How about "became the first"? Unsure about this.
- Done due to NPOV. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean? --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)- Done I clarified the comment with was the first Greek-lettered of four sororities established and incorporated by African-American college women. Since there is Delta Sigma Theta, Zeta Phi Beta, and Sigma Gamma Rho. miranda 11:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Excellent. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
*The geographical co-ordinates of Howard (or is it Washington - it's ambiguous, which is bad in itself) are irrelevant and a distraction and should be in the articles pointed to, not here.
- Done deleted miranda 17:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it a common Americanism to use "incorporated" as a verb? Horrible in English English ("was incorporated" would work) but wouldn't want to misjudge a regional usage of English issue
- Done was incorporated. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"Alpha Kappa Alpha has continued to create social and economic capital for almost one hundred years" - multiple problems. 1) it implies (wrongly, it would seem) that the sorority continued something which would necessarily be the work of a previous organisation. 2) it's exactly 100 years today, unless you're saying that originally it didn't do this. 3) I have no idea what you mean by "create social and economic capital" and there's no footnote or wikilink to help explain the jargon. 4) it reads like an ad. I get the sense it's important, so shouldn't just be deleted, but as I don't know what the sentence means, it's hard for me to suggest an alternative; I suggest it should be re-written.
" Done Changed to Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"According to Tamara L. Brown" is unwieldy. The comment is cited so doesn't need attribution unless doing so adds weight to something or there's a historical reason (like a quote from a contemporary, etc). Can the words be deleted?
- Done Sure. miranda 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- "little formal authority and real power" Implies they had little authority, but they had real power, which presumably is a nonsense. Delete "real" and it works.
- Done Women forming a sorority allowed spheres of influence, authority and power within institutions, which traditionally gave African-Americans and women little formal authority and power, to be increased. miranda 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
*I think the Tamara L Brown bit is interrupting a flow between the 1st and 3rd sentences which I think are on the same issue.
- Done I took the sentence out. miranda 17:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Mississippi Health Clinic is too detailed for Lead section, especially if not especially notable (as implied by lack of wikilink, which in turn implies no article)
- Not done The words are notable, because the initiative is one of note within the history of Alpha Kappa Alpha. The health clinic helped to improve conditions of a rural area in MS during the Depression era. miranda 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- "influenced federal legislation by Congressional lobbying" needs a whole bunch of wikilinks
- Done Clarified influenced federal legislation by Congressional lobbying through the National Non-Partisan Lobby on Civil and Democratic Rights. miranda 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the founder's name Hedgeman or Hedgeman-Lyle? Needs consistency. Is it that when she founded the org, she didn't have the Lyle? In which case, drop it in the Lead as an anachronism.Hedgeman-Lyle. Before she created the sorority, she was unmarried. She would be known as Hedgeman in this instance. miranda 18:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- "In Spring 1907, Ethel Hedgeman led the efforts to create the sisterhood of Alpha Kappa Alpha at Howard University." looks a little crystal-ball gazing. I suspect she might have led efforts to create a sorority, but its name surely wasn't an issue until it was created? Try "In Spring 1907, Ethel Hedgeman led the efforts to create a sisterhood for African American women at Howard University."
- Done del. sisterhood for AA women b/c AKA's membership includes all races. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
What's a "charter member"?
- Done Founder. I replaced with founder. miranda 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Worried about capitalisation in "Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity's Beta chapter at Howard". I suspect fraternity should be lower case.
- Not done Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is a proper noun. Full Name: Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Incorporated. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
"in the instrumental phases of organizing the Alpha Kappa Alpha in Fall 1907" Why "the" Alpha Kappa Alpha? Also, in English English we wouldn't capitalise autumn 1907 - what about US English?
- Done deleted "the". Also Not done capitalization, because "1907" is a noun for a year. The noun wouldn't be capitalized according to MOS. miranda 18:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Article deals only with Minor Hall, so why discuss "Main Hall" in caption?
- That was the only photo available of Minor Hall on the internet. I had tried to contact Howard's archives a couple of months ago, but they did not respond. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The photo is fine - just doesn't need to refer to the other building in the caption.
- Photo captions are overly long. On the Minor Hall one, how about "Miner Hall (left), Howard University in 1868.[9] The building was demolished in 1961.[11]"
- Not done There were two Minor Halls on Howard's campus. The same Minor Hall on Howard's campus is not the same Minor Hall of 1868. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure how this is a problem in what I suggest, nor how it's better in the current version.
- "Main founder" is horrible, but it leads to a broader issue; I'm curious about the WP:WEASEL about her, (here and at her biog). From the History section presented here, it seems clear she should be regarded as, simply, the founder. What's holding you back?
- Not done She was the main person who founded the sorority. AKA's history book says that the idea belonged to her to found the sorority. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- But calling her the "Main Founder" diminishes her, implying she's just the main one of many, when in fact she was the Founder, ie the one and only.
- No, she was the main founder. Other individual founders like Slowe and Burke helped to create the motto and the colors. Miranda 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- But calling her the "Main Founder" diminishes her, implying she's just the main one of many, when in fact she was the Founder, ie the one and only.
- "Together" is nearly two sentences away from the nine other women it refers to
- Done Together, the women wrote the sorority's constitution, and devised the motto, colors, and name,[3] with Hedgeman serving as the temporary chairperson. miranda 12:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The name, motto etc should be addressed in the main article and (particularly with the name which is very odd to a non-American audience) explained.
- Not done nah, that's top sekrit info that sorority members only should know. :-) miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- So say that!
- Nah, that would be advertising for membership. Miranda 20:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- So say that!
- What are "honor sophomores"?
- honor students. miranda 11:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's an "honor" student?
- honor student. Miranda 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- What's an "honor" student?
Will continue. --Dweller (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Nicely done. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support — Rlevse • Talk • 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I won't oppose, but the writing does need a clean-up throughout. Here are random issues in the lead. Please do justice to this important subject.
- Problems in the prose, such as:
- "to succeed"—at what? Perhaps remove it, and let "opportunities" speak for itself.
- Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Throughout the organization's founding, Alpha Kappa Alpha has helped to improve social and economic conditions through community service programs for one hundred years"—I don't get the opening clause: founding? Perhaps use numerals or at least a hundred, or even "Since its founding a century ago, ...".
- Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hyphen: "college educated women".
- Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Remove comma after "chapter".
- Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- MOS breach: either spaced en dashes as interrupters, or unspaced em dashes.
- Done Miranda 17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Trivial links, four in one sentence: "education, family, health, and business." Why distract the readers from the valuable links? We do speak English.
- Done Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Thanks! Miranda 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done Miranda 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] Jimmy McAleer
I'm nominating this sports biography for featured article because it is fairly comprehensive, well presented, and includes loads of references. The piece draws on a range of sources, including primary sources. Recently, it benefited from the feedback of several reviewers, and I think it now meets, or approaches, FA standards. I look forward to your comments and recommendations! Thank you, -- twelsht (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Two of three reviewers encouraged me to take this article directly to the FAC, while the third recommended the GAC. I took steps to address the concerns of the third reviewer. First, I added headings to better organize material on McAleer's varied career. Secondly, I expanded a section on his years as a baseball player. Finally, I highlighted a reference to McAleer's initiation of a venerable baseball tradition. In response to other comments, I added material on his early years and personal life, while weaving in more statistical data. I should mention that this article draws heavily on primary sources, including old newspaper articles. It does not rely exclusively on material available online. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment
I think it should be Sports E-Cyclopedia, not Sports Encyclopedia.Also, are these websites the most reliable sources? Some of them look dubious...are there no better sources out there? I imagine there are plenty of books out there on the early years of baseball. Finally, make sure you have author information for your sources when they list it.The Christian Science Monitor article has a byline of the Associated Press.BuddingJournalist 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Response Good call on the byline for The Christian Science Monitor. I amended the reference to show that it was an AP story. I also corrected the name of the Web site that was inaccurately rendered. Your point about the article's reliance on data from online sources is well taken. I would prefer to stick to print sources. Unfortunately, McAleer has become a relatively obscure figure, even though he was hailed upon his death as an architect of the American League. The early baseball sources I have on hand--Bill James' Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, Joel Zoss and John Bowman's Diamonds in the Rough, and Jerrold Casway's Ed Delahanty in the Emerald Age of Baseball--make little or no reference to McAleer. I may be able to weave in material from some of these sources to describe the atmosphere of Dead Ball Era baseball, but they won't help me to describe the career or personality of McAleer himself. That said, one-half of the references are drawn from print media. I refer extensively to an article published in McAleer's hometown paper (The Youngstown Vindicator) that includes an account of his fallout with Johnson that I've never read anywhere else. I also believe that most of the online references are from reliable baseball Web sites. The two links that strike me as questionable are connected to the Sports E-Cyclopedia site. I'll take steps to replace them. Thanks for the feedback! -- twelsht (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response I am taking steps to replace some of the online references with references to texts. This will take a little time, but it should ease any concerns about the reliability of the source material. -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would add thedeadballera site as somewhat questionable as well. The "Jimmy McAleer and the 1912 World Series" article doesn't have the author either. Please make sure to go through all of the sources and add authors where available. BuddingJournalist 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- I eliminated all references to the thedeadballera site. These have been replaced with references to Dewey and Acocella's historical overview of U.S. baseball teams. This book includes lots of information on tactics employed by the Spiders' manager--some of which I incorporated into the article. I removed all material drawn from the deadballera site that was not also featured in the book. Finally, I reviewed online and hard copy articles to confirm that bylines (where they exist) have been included in the reference. Thanks for catching these weaknesses and oversights. -- twelsht (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would add thedeadballera site as somewhat questionable as well. The "Jimmy McAleer and the 1912 World Series" article doesn't have the author either. Please make sure to go through all of the sources and add authors where available. BuddingJournalist 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Response I am taking steps to replace some of the online references with references to texts. This will take a little time, but it should ease any concerns about the reliability of the source material. -- twelsht (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose Not ready for FA:
- Article has POV sentences, like:
- "McAleer's association with the game ended abruptly"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "was surprisingly light on his feet and proved an asset to local baseball organizations"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "the club became closely associated with the sorts of aggressive tactics that damaged the reputation of the National League"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "McAleer's versatility as a player made him a valuable player"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "the beleaguered team was forced to cancel its home games due to poor attendance"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "Unable to build on this solid performance"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "earning a miserable seventh place"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "devastated by the mysterious death of star hitter"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "a memorable game in which McAleer initiated what became a venerable baseball tradition"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "McAleer, who was noted for his shrewdness, may have outwitted himself on this occasion."
- Done removed extraneous language
- "it also left Boston's players disgruntled and demoralized"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "his deteriorating relationship with the American League's president, Johnson, took a turn for the worse"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "an incongruously cosmopolitan figure"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "cultivating players, officials, and others who became significant figures in major league baseball"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "going so far as to"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "one of the most accomplished players of his era"
- Done removed extraneous language
- "McAleer's association with the game ended abruptly"
- Not comprehensive, no Personal life section.
-
- Done the article includes a substantial "Personal life" section
-
- References 2 and 26 have formatting problems.
-
- Done addressed
-
- Improve the article and try GA first. --Kaypoh (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Response I was surprised by your comment that the article was loaded with POV language. Many of the statements you cited were supported by inline citations. Others were supported by sourced statements that appeared elsewhere in the article. It didn't strike me as extreme, for instance, to suggest that McAleer's career ended "abruptly." McAleer sold his stock in the Red Sox after a dispute with Ban Johnson--an incident that is well documented. I also felt that I was on safe ground when I suggested that McAleer's hiatus from baseball "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season." My reference supports this statement; it also confirms that the Spiders' 1899 season was the worst in the history of major league baseball. Please know that I did not intend to imply a causal relationship between McAleer's absence and the Spiders' poor performance, and I didn't suspect readers would assume that I had.
-
- That said, the tone of the article could be more encyclopedic. To address your concerns, I took steps to remove all potentially inappropriate language. I even eliminated a SOURCED statement which described McAleer's alma mater as "an institution known regionally for its high academic standards." (This bothered me a little, because the school in question was only technically "public" at the time McAleer was enrolled. It was established through an endowment and had its own board of trustees.) In addition, I created a new section for the material on McAleer's personal life. I regret that this section is rather small. McAleer has not been the subject of a major biography, and he receives only a mention in books and articles dealing with the history of major league baseball. I hope these revisions address your concerns. Thank you for your feedback. Best, -- twelsht (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
(undent) I feel a need to point out that the opposed reviewer has not responded to repeated invitations to revisit this article. Whether or not the reviewer's concerns were misrepresented (as POV issues), I found them actionable and took steps to address them. Sincerely, -- twelsht (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I participated in the peer review of the article, and I disagree with the above assessment of the article:
- I don't find any of the statements POV. They are statements supported by the references given. WP:NPOV does not require that superlative statements or opinion are avoided entirely, merely that the opinion reflects the majority opinion as expressed by reliable sources. These statements clearly reflect the opinions as given in the reference, and thus clearly show a neutral point of view, or in a few cases are patently obvious (like, for example, "miserable seventh place"... well, seventh place in an eight team league is self-evidently miserable.
- Also, with regard to comprehensiveness, an article can only be as comprehensive as the existing scholarship. If there is no information on his personal life in reliable sources, this article cannot invent it. The article reliably represents a comprehensive view of existing scholarship on this person. Wikipedia cannot simply invent information where it does not exist.
- Based on the fact that the article is comprehensive, well-written, neutral, ad scrupulously referenced, this is easily featured quality. I give it my full support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayron32 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not able to give a full review here at this time, but I'd like to say that phrases like "overlapped with the Spiders' single worst season" and "proved to be one of the most contentious episodes of McAleer's career" are not POV. They are – as Jayron noted – assessments of the events based on the sources referenced. Adjectives do not automatically produce POV writing. Phrases which can be objectively examined (a team's worst season, for example) are the farthest thing possible from POV. Also: Perhaps it was added after you commented here, but the article does have a "Personal life" section. There's not much in it, since not much information is apparently available. There's only so much we can do about that. – Scartol • Tok 22:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Yet another thoroughly well-written, well-researched and engaging baseball article. twelsht's objective appears to have been to create a high-quality encyclopedic article (which has certainly been achieved) rather than—as has been bewilderingly suggested—to push a POV. I provided comments earlier on this article (which, as it turned out, didn't prove particularly useful) so I'm not entirely neutral :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, but please put en dashes, not hyphens in the scores (1–0). Check through the reliability of the references. No. 21, for example, has no author, and who is the owner of that site. Why should be trust it? Tony (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support: I am in the process of belatedly keeping a promise to copy-edit the article. This is an easy and enjoyable job. The current text has a particularly pleasing style. It is concise, informative, sourced but remains engaging. I think, in part, this is due to judicious selection of incidents and language from sources, that gently interact at the level of human interest, while being anchored in reliable, verifiable material. It is prose of a rare quality that informs without being dry. I support FA status for three reasons: one, it meets the criteria; two, it is a contribution of a standard Wiki can be proud to announce by FA that it accepts; and three, it is an example to all of us who contribute of what we can aim for. Alastair Haines (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I also enjoyed reading and copy-editing this article. Although I usually find sports articles difficult reading, this one is engaging and well-written; it paints a vivid portrait of JM and his era, and the rowdier world of sports just before the turn of the 20th century. The writing made even me come to care about Mr. McAleer, his choices, triumphs and disappointments. The material is well-illustrated and referenced meticulously; the obituary for McAleer's musical second wife was an especially nice touch. Willow (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] Chiffchaff
- Nominator I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's been significantly expanded and improved since GA Jimfbleak (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Opposenow Support but not far off. Could do with some inexpert copyediting. As an example, I found this sentence near the top of the article, where only the last word is wikilinked... "The spring adult of the western nominate subspecies collybita has brown-washed dull green upperparts, off-white underparts becoming yellowish on the flanks, and a short whitish supercilium" I'd suggest wikilinking or better explaining all of the words I've bolded. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Range map? Also image Image:Spectrogramcollybita2.jpg could be improved, graphs are easy to generate now-a-days and I also don't see much value in the graph itself. 206.248.183.187 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'll try to get a range map, lack the skills myself. I thought the spectrogram illustrated the differences between the subspecies' calls - I'll leave for now, remove if generally felt to be unhelpful. I don't know how to do graphs from non-numerically generated analogue data, any pointers please? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure advanced sound analysis programs could generate them but those cost money, need to be learned etc. I guess it wasn't to smart of me to suggest that you go through all that trouble. I apologize. Nevertheless I still don't see the merits of including it despite it being a nice trivial knowledge. The problem is I fail to see too many people in need or interest of such information. That is my opinion, I would ask you to not remove it unless your fellow WP:BIRD wikipedians would want to see it removed. If it isn't hurting anyone why bother stressing over it? Thanks, 206.248.183.187 (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll try to get a range map, lack the skills myself. I thought the spectrogram illustrated the differences between the subspecies' calls - I'll leave for now, remove if generally felt to be unhelpful. I don't know how to do graphs from non-numerically generated analogue data, any pointers please? Jimfbleak (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Nearly therevery very close but a couple of grammar thingies:
-
primary projection - need to link or explain. Done - actually already linked on first occurrence, explained too now
-
confusion species - agh. sounds...funny. I know what you mean but it is an unnatural construction to me ears. How about changing The most likely confusion species are the... to "Species most likely to be confused (with the chiffchaff) are the" Done - rephrased
-
but has a very plain face and green in the wings- could lose the 'very' I think Done
Other than that I think it's pretty well there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Nearly, nearly thereComments– Another good bird article from Jimfbleak. However, I have a couple of points I’d like to see addressed:
-
- Could you split up the first sentence in the lead; it seems a bit run-onish.
- I sense some POV at the end of the first paragraph of the lead (never thought I’d say that about bird biology :)); “while the male does little more” just sounds weird and judgmental to me.
- Not necessary if you like it as is, but I’d rearrange the first three sections so that they are 1. Taxonomy 2. Description and 3. Distribution; this would follow other bird FAs and also introduce reader to the different subspecies before they are mentioned in the other two paragraphs.
- Could you put the abbreviations for genus and species before each subspecies name?
- In Distribution, is there a word missing from “is not dependent on for trees.”?
- Do any of the subspecies/former subspecies have unique articles which are not linked to in the article?
- Breeding second paragraph, why do northern Chiffchaffs only have time to raise one brood (weather?)?
- You mention a cultural reference in the lead that does not make the article proper.
Other than this, I think that the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 05:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Done all above fixed
-
- Thanks for making my changes. However, just a few more comments before support. First, though not necessary, I'd move the picture of the Chiffchaff in the Taxonomy down to the Behavior section, as there are no pictures there and its current placement causes a lot of white space on my screen. Also, keeping in mind that this is a songbird and therefore generally isn't the most historically popular bird in the world, are there any cultural references out there? I noticed you deleted the stamp reference, but if it is mentioned in a poem or something that info could work its way back into the article (maybe in the Status section if it is renamed Relationship with Humans.) Also, I noticed that MPF suggested deleting all imperial units and I would just like to comment that I would be vehemently opposed to doing so, seeing how Joe American reading this article (myself included) cannot picture the metric units mean when reading them. And, as you pointed out, they are in all other bird FAs. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Done Image moved. I can't find any cultural refs for Chiffchaff - it's a small woodland bird, not a familiar garden/farm bird like the Wren, Blackbird or Barn Swallow, and there's nothing in Cocker (the best source for birds that occur in the UK), nothing I could find on the net. Jimfbleak (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Great job with this article. I supported above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comments:
-
- Map - I'll do an improved version sometime soon.
-
- Thanks
- Working on it, should be done later today unless anything else intervenes - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Finished breeding range, just got to fill in winter range now. Found this interesting short paper while looking for up-to-date info on Sweden (to see if the range gap between collybita and abietinus has filled in yet): pdf file, might be worth citing in the article - MPF (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Working on it, should be done later today unless anything else intervenes - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks
- Is there a better pic of the nominate race that can be put in the taxobox?
-
- Unfortunately not (Not on commons or anywhere esle I can find
- Subspecies could do with a bit more detail on identification/differentiation.
-
- I've done a bit more wrt P. c. abietinus, I'll go through again - I don't want to get too bogged down in fine detail (I've got masses of data on description, esp for the ex-subspecies). Done, expanded all of them esp voice
- I've done a bit more wrt P. c. abietinus, I'll go through again - I don't want to get too bogged down in fine detail (I've got masses of data on description, esp for the ex-subspecies).
- Minor trivia about depiction on stamp could be deleted or at least moved to bottom of page; it is one of the least important factoids on the page and doesn't deserve pride of place as the first referenced item at the top of the page.
-
- Done Deleted
- I don't think Goshawk (2nd paragraph) is a significant predator, if it is, it needs a ref; this sentence also duplicates the Predation section lower down the page.
-
- Done I've changed changed it to the more general "hawk", since it is likely (but I can't source it) that small accipiters other than Sparrowhawk will take the species.
- Excessive repetition of article title: it isn't necessary to repeat the name of the species ("the Chiffchaff is ...") every second sentence throughout the page. Use indefinite article ("it is ...") more.
-
- Done I've chopped to about one per para
- Cut imperial conversions, they're not necessary for a science topic and only clutter up the page and make it hard to read the measurements.
-
- I'm a bit wary about this, since I've had other bird GA/FA reviewers insisting they are in. Can you point me to the relevant MoS guidance to take them out? Also see R-c Sparrow's comment above
- WP:Mosnum#Conversions - "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Metric units are the international global standard, and as such it is reasonable to assume that everyone is familiar with them, including people in the USA where the it is taught in all schools and extensively (almost universally) used in US science publications. Anyone who isn't familiar with them must clearly have made a conscious effort to reject them. Sorry, but I really don't think the comment above is enough! I don't see the relevance of imperial units to this article at all; nor do I see why the vast majority should be inconvenienced to satisfy the pov of a small minority who reject global standards which are very easily learnt. We don't carry creationist pov in science topics; I don't see why we should carry imperialist pov, either. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whilst, as a Brit, I sympathise with this view, I'm not sure that there is a consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units even within the Bird Porject as required by the MoS guidance above Jimfbleak (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- WP:Mosnum#Conversions - "Conversions to and from metric and US units are generally provided. There are exceptions, including: articles on scientific topics where there is consensus among the contributors not to convert the metric units, in which case the first occurrence of each unit should be linked". Metric units are the international global standard, and as such it is reasonable to assume that everyone is familiar with them, including people in the USA where the it is taught in all schools and extensively (almost universally) used in US science publications. Anyone who isn't familiar with them must clearly have made a conscious effort to reject them. Sorry, but I really don't think the comment above is enough! I don't see the relevance of imperial units to this article at all; nor do I see why the vast majority should be inconvenienced to satisfy the pov of a small minority who reject global standards which are very easily learnt. We don't carry creationist pov in science topics; I don't see why we should carry imperialist pov, either. - MPF (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that Wikiproject birds is a more appropriate forum for this debate than FAC; I'm just following the guidelines as I perceive they currently stand, and I don't see consensus at the project at present. If you intend to oppose the FA on this issue, that's unfortunate, but there is little I can do about it. Jimfbleak (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jimfbleak that another page would be more appropriate to debate this than a FAC, but let me just say first that in American schools we are taught metric units and the basics of conversion, but we never really use them outside of school. Our scales are in pounds, our height is measured in feet, and we judge miles per hour and per gallon, not kilometers. Wikipedia's goal is to communicate encyclopedic information clearly to as many people as possible, and I think that myself and the majority of the 301 million Americans would relate to imperial units much better than metric, which some, particularly older ones who were not taught it in school, may not even recognize. As for the vast majority being inconvenienced by the inclusion of imperial, I believe that, going by the top 5 English speaking nations, there are 301 million Americans to a combined 115 million Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and Canadians. And to mimic Casliber, I just don't see how the conversions affect readability. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "301 million Americans" - none of them within the range of the species under discussion. That is an awful imposition to demand of a topic of no relevance to them. And you're forgetting 1,000 million Indians, 300 million Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, 300 million Africans, and something like 500-1,000 million other eastern Asian people who use English as a second language, all of them exclusively metric users, and most of them within the range of the species at hand. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- So are you suggesting that because this bird is not normally found in America, Americans do not need to be able to understand the article? And how are a few parentheses an "awful imposition"? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all! You're doing down the intelligence and comprehension of your countrymen there. As already mentioned, U.S. scientific publications all use metric measures exclusively; you won't find imperial measures in e.g. The Auk. And also as mentioned, it is reasonable to expect everyone to be familiar with global standards; if anyone isn't, then learn them, they're an essential part of common knowledge (and were specifically designed to be very easy to learn and use, so no excuses there!). What you are saying is more comparable to e.g. if I insisted that all U.S.-related topics on wikipedia must carry British English spellings in parenthesis after the U.S. spellings, just because a few British people may not understand (or, more accurately, may not wish to understand) U.S. spellings. And we don't do that.
- So are you suggesting that because this bird is not normally found in America, Americans do not need to be able to understand the article? And how are a few parentheses an "awful imposition"? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "301 million Americans" - none of them within the range of the species under discussion. That is an awful imposition to demand of a topic of no relevance to them. And you're forgetting 1,000 million Indians, 300 million Bangladeshis and Pakistanis, 300 million Africans, and something like 500-1,000 million other eastern Asian people who use English as a second language, all of them exclusively metric users, and most of them within the range of the species at hand. - MPF (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Jimfbleak that another page would be more appropriate to debate this than a FAC, but let me just say first that in American schools we are taught metric units and the basics of conversion, but we never really use them outside of school. Our scales are in pounds, our height is measured in feet, and we judge miles per hour and per gallon, not kilometers. Wikipedia's goal is to communicate encyclopedic information clearly to as many people as possible, and I think that myself and the majority of the 301 million Americans would relate to imperial units much better than metric, which some, particularly older ones who were not taught it in school, may not even recognize. As for the vast majority being inconvenienced by the inclusion of imperial, I believe that, going by the top 5 English speaking nations, there are 301 million Americans to a combined 115 million Brits, Aussies, New Zealanders, and Canadians. And to mimic Casliber, I just don't see how the conversions affect readability. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- As to the location of this discussion, yes, it would be better on the project page. Shall I copy or move it all across there? Or anyone else, feel free to do so. - MPF (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Moved discussion for continuation to here. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps one should use conversion templates and hope that the future wikimedia software will interpret templates to show per user taste / setting. Shyamal (talk) 08:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a bit wary about this, since I've had other bird GA/FA reviewers insisting they are in. Can you point me to the relevant MoS guidance to take them out? Also see R-c Sparrow's comment above
- Spellcheck: needs checking over to BrE (per wp:engvar), e.g. "vocalisations" and "vocalizations" appear in successive paragraphs.
-
- Done
- Etymology is under the Taxonomy header, not the right place - should have its own header, perhaps lower down the page. - MPF (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done
- I disagree - etymology clearly belongs as a subheading of taxonomy (i.e. how things are named), though it is ok as a separate subheading. Also note FA criterion 2(b) concerning Hierarchy of headings, where groups of related material are grouped together. Anyway, that's how all other biological FAs have ended up cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support looks good to me. I'm going to make one or two trivial edits but apart from that.... Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] London congestion charge
- First Featured Article Candidate - previous FAC
- First Featured Article Review - FAR
- Former featured article; has been on main page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Nominated: I am nominating this article on which several editors have worked on recently to bring it back up to FA standard. I believe it is comprehensive, well written and fully referenced. Regan123 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm counting 3 dead links. The Lead needs to kick off with the significance rather than price and time details. But, on first read I like it.--Docg 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Done - Thanks for the comment. Can't do anything about the red links at the moment - is this part of the FA criteria? What we have done is explain briefly what they mean where an article doesn't yet exist. Regan123 (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think Doc was referring to dead links, not red links, as here. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- It seems also generally good to refernce the lead. Simply south (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Its just a suggestion after seeing many FAs. It is sometimes seen that if the lead is not referenced that the article is not reffed enough but then there are many FAs without references at the start. Simply south (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- This has been beaten to death at WP:LEAD#Citations in the lead section. There is no absolute requirement for citations in the lead, except in some exceptional circumstances. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I like it, though I'd like to see something done about the "failing to meet predictions" line - either cited or removed. Will (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment, it mentions changes after 18 February 2007... can we get a map of that? gren グレン 08:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've asked the creator of the original map if it would be possible for them to do this. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support some good recent work to source the figures and so on. David Underdown (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - meets FAC IMHO. Nice work as of late. Good job. Rudget. 17:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional support—on the understanding that the overlinking will be addressed (MOS breach): words such as "Christmas", "buses", "taxis", "police officer", "public transport"—why not link every single word in the article? We do speak English, and don't want the high-value links diluted by ugly splotches of blue. Tony (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. I've delinked Christmas as I can see that one, but as these are specifically excluded vehicles, I would suggest that those links should remain as they are defined things within the regulations around the scheme. I know we've been keen to keep the links down to one for each item. Certainly if it is a deal breaker, then they will go, but I just want to be sure it is vital - I feel they are of some worth. Regan123 (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Links work on the basis of someone reading one article sees a reference to something and think "hey, it would be useful for me to know more about that" - thus links to bog standard items are always superflous. If the link were to Buses in London or or Metropolitan Police Service, that would be fine - but a link to bus or taxi or any generic item not specific the the topic should be removed.--Docg 12:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Provisional support Good article, generally well written and covering a complicated topic thoroughly:
-
- Suggest that the redlinks should be taken out until there's something on the other end.
- It definitely needs a map showing the original zone and the expanded zone.
- The first sentences of the Income and costs section could use some work as they are confusing. The sentence in the bracket seems to be trying to provide too much information in one hit and does not seem to offer any figures that may actually be compared usefully with the net income - what is the net income for TfL from other sources?
- Some comment on the implications of the 30-year bond issue on TfL's future finances might be interesting, for example:
- What happens if the charge income is too low to service the interest?
- What happens if the charge is abolished?
- --DavidCane (talk) 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please review the unresolved external links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] Treehouse of Horror (series)
I feel that the article meets the current FAC criteria. It is fully sourced and has improved quite a bit since the last nom. -- Scorpion0422 04:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is the point of this to make THOH a featured topic? Ribbet32 (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran2 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. Let's just discuss one WP:FAC at a time, topic drive discussions can take place at the relevant WikiProject or topic drive pages. As for that potential idea, it's nice for this topic and could work, but I agree with Gran2 (talk · contribs) that this is probably something that is a long ways off. Cirt (talk) 12:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
- I don't know about anyone else, but I currently have no intentions of trying for a Treehouse of Horror FT. -- Scorpion0422 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- While it could be a possibility in the very far future, no. The point of this is to get the Treehouse of Horror (series) article to FA. Gran2 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Very well sourced, well-written. Just one thing, you might want to create a disambiguation page for Treehouse of Horror (moving Treehouse of Horror to Treehouse of Horror (episode)), and add the relevant see also links and such to that page, and then have a disambiguation note at the top of this article and the other articles. Would be easier for those not familiar with Wikipedia navigation. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
- I'm unsure whether it is "very well sourced. Ref 53 led me to a glitzy, tiny black-background lewdly formatted commercial-soaked site where the reviewer, one Dan Iverson, has written things such as: "Plus this sketch was too outright with its satire of the war in Iraq. We understand the purpose of satirizing the state of the war, but they wrote it so heavy-handed that it was like they were ...". The prose is amateurish, it appears to be very opinionated (do we really trust his judgement that the satire was "outright", whatever that means?), and the statement in the WP article this is used to back up—well, it's that the standard of the later episodes declined. I'm not sure I believe it from this reference. 1c Tony (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
- IGN is a very useful site and is known for their reviews. Just because this one happens to be poorly written is not our fault. The reason it is used as a source is because of this quote: "Unfortunately like the past few years, this Treehouse episode isn't up to the quality that was started so many years back - if you need proof, just look at the sketches that we compiled on our list of the Top 10 Segments from The Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror." -- Scorpion0422 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that is an article from IGN, we can't really change or criticize the reviewer's prose itself, rather simply test whether or not the use of that source fits with WP:RS and WP:V, which it does. Cirt (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
- Rejoinder: well, you assert that it's "very useful", but the quality of the prose does detract from its credibility. It's that and the fact it contains several highly opinionated, possibly contentious statements that are neither referenced (I guess I wouldn't expect that), nor supported by example or a more detailed argument. My problem is that by using a dodgy source, even one that is "known for their reviews" (among whom, I wonder), WP can be endorsing what might turn out to be falsehoods, or assumptions that are later overturned. It's a slippery slope. All I'm asking is that you re-examine your references to ensure that they are worth inserting and do reliably support the apposite statements. Tony (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did google searches of several different reliable sources, and I can't find anything other than reviews of individual episodes that say that specific episode is no good, but nothing that mentions the decline of the entire group. I think the quality decline should be noted as most fans will tell you that the last 9 are nowhere near as good as the first 9. IGN is a reliable source and it's reviews are used on several FAs, and it's really not our fault that this particular review happens to not be perfectly written. It's still a reliable source, and the decline in quality really isn't just the POV of one reviewer. -- Scorpion0422 00:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment -- "Considered non-canon, they always take place outside the normal continuity of the show and completely abandon any pretense of being realistic." -- Forgive me if I missed something, but it appears that this info is only stated in the Lead/Intro, and not later in the article. Though this may seem obvious to Simpsons fans, is there a source backing this up? Cirt (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
- Dead links check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment Looks good. 1a seem to be the only issue.
- "There are currently 18" isn't as of 2007 better? Done
- "category, but it ultimately lost." why ultimately?
- because ultimately lost sounds better.
- "four parts: an opening and Halloween-themed version of the credits as well as three segments" what is the diffrence between a part and a segments.
- I'm not sure I understand your concern. There are four seperate parts of an episode (or acts), the first one is the opening, the final three are segments. They are simply described as parts for that sentence.
- "The wraparounds were abandoned after a few years because eventually, the amount of airtime for an episode was lessened and there was not enough room for them." Awkward wording. Don't like the use of abandoned, eventually, lessened and room. Done
- Traits might be a better section title than Traditions
- The producers on the commentary refer to them as traditions, so that's the word the article uses.
- "opens with a special introductory segment" why special? also now it's a segment but before it was a part.
- "Scary names" why a quotation marks and isn't "Credits" a better title.
- ""Treehouse of Horror V" is considered the best episode by several critics" needs ref.
- Further on down the sentence, there are several specific examples, all of which have citations.
- The bit about the IGN list seem a bit redundent. All it's saying is there was a top ten and this is what it was.
- Over linking of the individual episodes thoughout I think.
- They are linked so as to help remind people what episode it each example is talking about. All of them are similarily titled and it would be difficult for non-fans to know specifically what episode is being described, so if people say "which one is Treehouse of Horror VI?", there is a link right there and they don't have to search the article.
- In the Awards section. Put the stuff about awards they've won before the stuff about nominations.
- Also in the Awards section lose the stuff about them not winning. Clearly if it's saying they were only nominated they didn't win it. Done
- "However, the award went to an episode of Pinky & The Brain." nothing to do with the Treehouse of Horror series.
- It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- A better when to information people of related info is through links to other articles. In this case this link would work.
- Yes it does, because it lost to Pinky and the Brain, it's not like it goes into detail about the other shows that were nominated that year. -- Scorpion0422 23:27, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Using that logic you might as well mention all the nominations for every award that night and even what coulour tie the host was wearing. It still has nothing to do with the subject. Buc (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's just there for comprehensiveness, so if people wonder what show the episode lost to, it's right there. -- Scorpion0422 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support - I looked over it, and it's very well written and referenced. Good job! xihix(talk) 20:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments. Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes are needed. I'm a little concerned with the sourcing of the DVD commentaries; are there transcripts available online? A fair use rationale is needed for each image, each time it is used in each article. I'm a little concerned with two screenshot images (the top one and the one of Bart and Lisa in the treehouse), as they seem to be decoration. From the Fair use page for acceptable images, Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. However, they don't seem to fit that. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Non-breaking space means it should be 2 minutes, not 2 minutes (view that in the editing window). Also, em-dashes are — instead of - (again, see in edit window). It should be 20–22 minutes. I suppose that's fine about the commentaries; after all, the words straight from the creators are pretty reliable. Regarding the images, though, you need a better fair use rationale for each one used in the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- This may sound like a real noobish question, but what are Non-breaking spaces and em-dashes? To answer your question, no the DVD commentaries aren't available online (and if they were we couldn't use them as sources due to copyright issues), but I personally listened to every commentary used in the episode and I guarantee it's all based on what is said. I'll admit that the lead image is kind of decorative, but the image of Bart and Lisa illustrates that it is the only episode to have a scene in a treehouse, which is discussed in the text. -- Scorpion0422 05:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support very encyclopedic and informative :) --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - It's about time! (SUDUSER)85 14:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 04:36, 22 January 2008.
[edit] USS Illinois (BB-65)
previous FAC (14:00, 15 December 2007)
With Special permission from Deupty FAC Director SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), this article is being reinstated to the FAC que after the previous nom was closed without any chance for comments on the newly uploaded version of this page. This newer version of the article has addressed some of the previous complaints raised regarding the article's length and content. Comments and suggestions are welcome for this newer version, as are any questions you may have regarding this nom. This is a self nomination, in its current form about 80% of the articles content was written by me. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nominate and support TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose (see additional clarification at the bottom of this page)
- First let me start off by saying excellent additions!!!This is more in line with an FA-quality article. It still isn't there, but you've clearly done your homework...speaking of doing your homework, I assume your exams are over? Enough chit-chat, let's get to the meat of the article (I'm not going to hit everything, but I will try to give at least one example of each...realize that you need to check the entire article for these problems).
:#Excessive wordiness/passive voice/improper number conversions (mind you these are the opening sentences in the body): "The passage of the Second Vison Act in 1939 had cleared the way for construction of the four South Dakota-class fast battleships and the first two Iowa class battleships (those with the hull numbers BB-61 and BB-62).[1] The latter four battleships of the class, those designated with the (hull numbers BB-63, BB-64, BB-65, and BB-66) were not cleared for construction until 1940,.[1] and at the time the two battleships with h Hull numbers BB-65 and BB-66 were intended to be originally slated as the first ships of the Montana-class, a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber 16-inch (40cm)/50 caliber Mark 7 guns." How did the Second Vison Act "clear" anything? What was the Second Vison Act? Was something else stopping it? These kinds of problems can and should be avoided.
-
"...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic termsSwitching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.References need some work. You need to include all pertinent information: author, publisher, title, date of publication, date of access (for websites only, not books), page numbers, etc. These all need to be within Wikipedia standards (proper italics, wikified dates for ALL citations, etc).Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space - between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61 cl.[?]Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 700 lb.Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- In short, it isn't ready yet. I have no intention of nitpicking and showing every possible problem. Please read User:BQZip01/FA Tips for more information.
I hope that helps in fixing up the article! — BQZip01 — talk 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Don't take criticism of an article so personally. I know I've been somewhat guilty of that in the past too, but try to detach yourself from a piece of work you don't even own.
- As a courtesy to you and the other editors, I am reposting what you put on my talk page with regards to the article. Please post such answers here in the future. This is your responsibility, not mine. I have tried to keep your comments as intact as possible while removing extraneous comments not applicable to this FAC. If I misworded something or misquoted, it is entirely by accident.
- The following stems from a conversation between TomStar81 (talk · contribs) and BQZip01 (talk · contribs) begining on BQZip01's rfa page and extending across both our talk pages. In its original format it was intended to be critical of BQZip01's response to myself (or lack there-of), and was intended as an "if x, then y" argument on the latter's rfa page. Although not a part of this FAC originally, I will concede a point in BQZip01's favor with regards to these comments and there relevancy here, as these to shed light into my mental state regarding this FAC.
I have been waiting for two and one-half week for an answer from you. That's more than 14 days, sir. Suppose for a moment that situation was reversed, that you were the one waiting for answer from me, and having not gotten one left three messages on my talk page looking for one only to be (seemingly) ignored. How would feel?...And for the record replies to an FAC would go directly on the FAC page, not on the FAC talk page. Its your responsibility to check back on that page to see if the nominator has addressed the issues present, and you are suppose to check back and update your oppose as needed. From where I sit, numbers 2,3,4 and 9 were fixed last year and still no post assessment tweaks to your comments. Reviewers who object at FAC are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. That written right into the opposition section. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Respectfully, what specifically has been addressed? I haven't seen anything to indicate what has been altered. I have no intention of re-reading the entire article over and over every time you make a single change just to see if you addressed my objection. Please specify. — BQZip01 — talk 07:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
- "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
- It isn't there anymore
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't there anymore
- Switching between terms: BB-65, battleship #65, hull number 65, etc. Stick to one term throughout for clarity. Don't abbreviate using "#"
- It has been fixed
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- It has been fixed
- Too many subsections in the Armament section. It appears choppy.
- These were merged.
- struck accordingly — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- These were merged.
- Get rid of weasel words in this article IAW WP:AWT. "arguably" should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
- It should be out of the article now.
- What does this mean? Is it gone or not? (it is gone and has been struck accordingly, but please be more clear in the future). — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- It should be out of the article now.
- "...a leviathan the likes of which the United States had never before constructed...." serious use of peacock terminology/poor encyclopedic terms
- Then why did you oppose instead of comment?...Could the same effect have been achieved without the need to oppose? I am not a mind reader, I depend on other people to haul their asses to the pages and reread their comments and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made. Since you seem to have trouble reading your own writing then I will spell out what I think I have addressed from your concer list:
-
-
- "...and the nominators reaction to those comments every time a change is made." (your words, not mine) Up until now, you have not posted such a reaction other than something like "I have updated the article." This "addresses" none of my objections in and of itself. These comments do. Please continue to do so in the future and feel free to put them directly after each point I made to clearly show the progress. You have done this with other editors' comments. I do not understand why this is such and issue with mine. — BQZip01 — talk 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oppose This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. It is also possibly inaccurate. It keeps describing the item as a " hulk". It is not clear that it was ever afloat. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? Albatross2147 (talk) 23:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever this thing was it certainly was never a hulk by any definition. In any event even the article's proposer conceded that one. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Her sister is an Featured Article, and all five of the never laid down Montana class battleships have their own articles. If Danfs has an entry for the ship then it meets minimum standards for being here on Wikipedia. A lot of the article is based on the information leading up to creation and the events surrounding her early construction work; this is common. If you see inaccuracies, add {{cn}} tags to the stuff that needs cited and I will see to it that the material gets cited. The article does make references to the ship being a hulk, I must admit that I am not aware of any distinction made between hulk and floating; if this is incorrect for the article and its context, it will be taken out forthwith. The other FA-class articles all use She over it, even the incompletd Kentucky; I see no reason why this one should be any different. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- What on earth does ...a larger, slower, upgunned class of battleship with an improved armor belt intended to protect her from her own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns. mean" I know the US military are notorious for own goals but this seems to be taking the precautionary principle too far. Albatross2147 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Battleships in any nations fleet were usually armored to withstand guns of their own size. Of the ships using 16-inch guns during WWII (the North Carolina, South Dakota, Iowa, and Montana classes) the North Carolinas and South Dakotas were only armoured to withstand the 16"/45 calibur guns, while the Iowa class was designed only to resist the original 2,240 lb shells originally developed for the 16"/50 and thus were inedequetly armored against the "super heavy" 2,700 lb shells they actually used during the war (it is for this reason that some people consider the Iowa class to be battlecruisers and not battleships). Montana would have been the first U.S. battleship to feature an improved armor belt intended to protect Montana and her sisters from her their own compliment of twelve 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 guns (and by extension, the 2,700 lb ammunition used in those guns). TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Comment Despite TomStar81's loving attention to the article over the past few weeks to the point where it is well written and has high clarity I can't see why the subject matter would merit a seperate article let alone an FA. In most histories of the USN the partially completed keel and frame (it was never a completed hull even) would merit at best a para but more likely a footnote. As someone else here observed there is not enough to say about this ship that never was to merit an FA. For mine the article should be merged with other unfinished vessels in the class or an overall class article.Albatross2147 (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The article (like the above) is full of egregious spelling errors which should be eliminated. Have you tried using Firefox with spellcheck turned on? Albatross2147 (talk) 00:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- This piece of stillborn hardware is of questionable notability anyway and should be nom for Afd/Merge anyway. - FAC is not AFD. If you think it should be deleted or merged, take it there. Until then, we're going to assume it's a notable and potentially featurable article. A lot of the article is taken up with what it might have been. - this sounds very similiar to the feedback I got during my Operation Downfall FAC. And to echo the comment I made there, there are only so many ways you can describe something that never really happened. It is not clear that it was ever afloat. - a possibly valid point, but I know of no word other than "hulk" to describe an unfinished ship. Can you suggest something? The dictionary defines it as An old or unseaworthy ship used as a prison or warehouse. Often used in the plural. - an unfinished ship is certainly not seaworthy. The object is persistently characterized as "she" and "her". I know that it is common for vessels to be characterized as such but should this be the case in Wp generally and in particular for this abortive project that was never the subject of a naming ceremony/launch? - Whether or not it was ever launched has nothing to do with what pronoun to use. My own opinion, and Wikipedia policy, is to go with whatever common english usage is -- in which case, both "it" and "she" should be acceptable. Raul654 (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Objectionthis article so bad not even the slinkyies hoes in hoe town get close to it. - bad organization -doesn't look comprehensive -and really does not look FA quality - (this comment is actionable - action being would be "improving article to FA quality")--Keerllston 23:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Sustained -- you make your point as good as the others, but a few suggestion would go a long way toward helping me bring this article up to FA status. I already know about the spelling and the grammar problems, and those are beyond my ability fix becuase my spelling sucks. Unless I log on through the university systems on their computers I have no accsess to mozilla or the spellchecker within it.I think the article is comprehensive; I have stated before that this is part of series on the topic and (ideally) should be read along with Iowa class battleship and Armament of the Iowa class battleship. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Tom, I am very concerned about this. Are you saying you want us to give this article featured status even though you know it has spelling errors? Surely you can't be serious. What school do you attend where a simple dictionary is not available? Go through and check each word if you need to/ Please don't come to an FAC and waste time the time of fellow editors for simple things like spelling. That is not what an FAC is intended to be. As a further suggestion, cut & paste into Microsoft Word and hit "F7"; it'll do a grammar and spelling check. It isn't the best, but it will help. — BQZip01 — talk 08:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have done that before, and even then I do not get all of the spelling and grammar errors. What I am saying is that the spelling is beyond my ability to correct, not that I think spelling can be overlooked on an FAC because it can't. If push comes to shove I will petition the leauge of copyeditors to review the article and correct the spelling. On a similar note I am glad to see you came back. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Opposesome questions, firstly the prose is inconsistent in tense making it difficult to follow whether the ship was built or not, along with swapping between names USS Montana and USS Illinois, according to linked articles Montana was designated BB-67. Part of this confusion in prose stems from having a separate section on Armament when the vessel wasnt completed. Armament should covered in the various designs, without the detailed sections about the design bofor & oerlikons guns Gnangarra 10:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)Strike see below Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Dwarf Kirlston comments also indicate that the article layout is disorganized so maybe looking at chronologically would assist that. Discuss Montana class design including armament, then discuss Iowa class the armament particulars of that, this is a significant factor in the choice of the BB-65 and BB-66 order and moving of USS Montana from BB-65 to BB-67. With Montana while its was designated as BB-65 the sources(that I could read) indicated that the order for the ship was dropped in priority for 2 extra Iowa class after the events at Midway. IMHO (without access to source 3,4,5 which appear to also cover this information) the focus on USS Illinois being called USS Montana is inconsistent with sources as it was only BB-65 designation that they have in common. Source 3 the link has died so you'll need to re-establish. Gnangarra 13:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I write this I am (albeit slowly) working through the article to try and get it harmonized, as you noted the tense is off in places and the article switches from the class and conversion templates to the old style one cite per unit method, both of witch need to be addressed. On the Montana note you left: our current version does indeed note that Montana was assigned the hull number BB-67, but I have been working on bringing the Montana class article up to featured status and the associated research for that yielded this new evidence. At the moment our Montana class article and the as yet unfinished version sitting in my sandbox are radically different, I do not have all the needed parts to place the new version out to be seen by all. To be honest it had not occurred to me that the current article namespace version of the Montana class battleships did not address these issues. I am none to keen on outright removing the material related to the battleship when designated USS Montana since that would leave the article uncomprehensive. On the issue of the armament: I have the section arrayed as they are now because I thought that this method would be simplier to understand, but I would be willing to remove the entire section and its subsections and consolidate the information into a paragraph or two under the sections "USS Montana" and "USS Illinois". Would that be better? TomStar81 (Talk) 11:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- OpposeIt seemed quite well written and researched, but I just don't think it is notable enough to make the grade. There are lots of ships that did get built and have a real history, why on earth put so much work into this white elephant? Excalibur (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Its part of a plan to create a featured list for the Iowa class of battleships, to do that requires that the articles be FA-class. Of the six battleships in the Iowa class Illinois is by far the hardest to write for because the battleship was never consider for any sort of post life rebuild. I do believe that given the chance I can make this work, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered nominating it. Notability requirements for an incomplete ship should not be brought up here; the article has been here for years and no one has every complained about its notability at SHIPS, MILHIST, or any other project; nor for that matter has anyone every filed a notability based afd for the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to nitpick, but you mean Featured Topic instead of featured list. And, the requirements for such only require a majority of the articles in the topic to be featured, but all FA-class is a good goal for such an endeavor. -MBK004 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- A featured topic does not need all the articles to be FA. It's OK if you have a few GAs in the topic. --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not to nitpick, but you mean Featured Topic instead of featured list. And, the requirements for such only require a majority of the articles in the topic to be featured, but all FA-class is a good goal for such an endeavor. -MBK004 02:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- ...Yeah, what'd I say? TomStar81 (Talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Featured list and all the articles had to be FA-class. Need some coffee? -MBK004 02:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sleep actually, working 22 hours days to pass school is extremely taxing on the brain and other associated mental facilities. Aside from the lack of sleep I am happy to be back. BTW, I am working on tweaking the article to address some of these concerns, so everyone keep your eyes open. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- A new version has been put up in an effort to address some of the FAC complaints received here. Comments on this new version are welcome, as are any other comments or questions you may have. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - Although I thought the older versions were adequate, I must say that you've done wonders for the article. As always, I've also corrected your "horrible" spelling above. :) -MBK004 18:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Support after the more recent rewrite, I've also done some copy editting when reviewing. Gnangarra 06:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)- Oppose per above. An article with so many English problems should not be an FA. My English is not very good but I can see problems in the lead. For example, change "this gained an eight" to "this gained her an eight" and "where as" is used wrongly. Also, the reference after "at the time of cancellation" should be after a comma or full stop. What happened to the new version with more info? --Kaypoh (talk) 09:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- The information is still there; the armament sections were not well recieved with the community and this nessicitated a rewrite of the article to deal with the objections. As for the sp&g objections, I will try to address the issues to the best of my limited spelling ability. BTW, thank you for coming back; I apreciate your comments on this FAC. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Objection continued despite changes-calling a section Fate both seems that it will descibe in detain the fate of more than just a bell seems to imply a fatalistic universe -bad tone.--Keerllston 14:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Changed that section title to Scrapping also removed a duplicated sentence in that section. Gnangarra —Preceding comment was added at 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I know it's usual to have a section called background but I object - a possible solution is the splitting up of that section into more useful sections -section called "context"/"similar battleships" and a section called "construction" instead - maybe one called planning as well - currently very bad organization.--Keerllston 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)- Perhaps the following scheme then:
- Design
- Development
- Scrapping
- Notes
- References
- External Links
- Do you think that would help the orginization any? TomStar81 (Talk) 23:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
Any scheme would be better than just "Background" and "Scrapping" as content headings - (background to what? -the scrapping???). -
Your scheme sounds good - If I might propose - 1st heading:Background/Context/*in terms of pre-WWII/in terms of novelty of Battleship design/in terms of costs of war that never mattered in actual battle -2nd: US Government/Command/Ordering -3rd:Design -Construction and Funding -4th:Scrapping
--Keerllston 10:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- My 2c based on what I've read in the sources the sections 1 thru 3 are very intertwined, though I'd think 1/Background & Design - which covers the issues of treaty restrictions, Panamax design compromises and the first use of the formula in battleship designs. 2/Construction - This covers the ordering/reordering(inc priority to Aircraft carriers, anti aircraft platforms after Midway/Coral Sea), building costs wleding vs rivet/weld 3/Scrapping - as is. This only my thoughts as to Dwarfs suggestion, it doesnt change my support for the articles promotion. Gnangarra 11:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment the organization has substancially improved, as a result I
Strike-throughmy objection. - I believe comprehensibility could also be improved (per proposal above)- I will probably re-review later on.--Keerllston 15:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC) - Comment—I tried to address multiple issues on this page, but it may need more tweaking by an experienced editor. I'm a little dubious about the Voodoo World reference, as it gives no sources for the data and it doesn't look like a professional site. Is there a cross-reference that could be used?—RJH (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- I checked the voodoo site information very carefully before using it here, the information is reliable (by which I mean that it agrees with other books/web sites). I will double cite that for you if it will make you feel better. Thanks you for your copy-editting help as well, I apreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- Found your additional citations, they were from a book I own. The part about her being the 5th of the six authorized battleships could prabably be cited several times over, the Naval Vessel Register and the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships would support this claim as well via stated dates. I beleive the spring book from the Naval board could also be used to cite the information if you wish. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I got a new PC for christmas, so my contributions here may decrease somewhat shile I get everything back up to speed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I got my PC more or less set up, so barring any unforseen incidents I should be free to surf the net at will. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment With the exception of a few missing codecs needed for playing certain video files (namely, those I pirate from my pc games) I am now 100% done with setting up and installing the computer. There is one small matter though that should be wieghed with this: my previously saved websites (including a butload of sites from which I draw information for articles here) have yet to be located and readded to my favorites folder, therefore requests for information regarding certain aspects of this article (or any other article I have actively contributed to since 2004) will likely be met with a slow response. PS: Happy New Year, all! TomStar81 (Talk) 10:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. It's perfectly possible to have an FA on a battleship which was never built. The design work can be fascinating and the response of other nations to even an unbuilt ship can be important. However, not this one: there is not enough to say about this ship which cannot be said about Iowa class battleship or Montana class battleship. It's an article worth having but because of the inevitable limitations in scope it will never be an example of Wikipedia's best work and so shouldn't be an FA. The Land (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is a nonsensical argument. The Land (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria about an article having "not enough to say"; only that the article be comprehensive on the topic. To be comprehensive it must include some material that may be redundant with the articles on the Iowa or Montana class BB's. It clearly satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability criteria, so it belongs on wikipedia. I see no logical reason to sustain this argument by The Land.—RJH (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is a nonsensical argument. The Land (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Raul654 has bought in on this FAC (see fatuity above). He likes the article therefore the chances are that not only will it get past this process but we'll see it on the front page sometime soon. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- OMG, I hope it never makes the front page: referring to ships as women so publicly would be an embarrassment for the project. However, I don't mind the change of location for the discussion of the sexist language, and as I've said elsewhere, I think it's quite a good article. Tony (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, many articles that refer to ships this way have already been on the front page. Is that an embarrassment? (See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships#Featured_Articles) -MBK004 04:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- OMG, I hope it never makes the front page: referring to ships as women so publicly would be an embarrassment for the project. However, I don't mind the change of location for the discussion of the sexist language, and as I've said elsewhere, I think it's quite a good article. Tony (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing can be done to fix this objection, therefore it is not valid. Raul654 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Discussion of the use of female pronouns to describe the ship moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/USS Illinois (BB-65). Raul654 (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment on the pronoun (note sp) move (censorship?) - Raul's comments are allowed to stand - those of others get moved. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
CommentSupport The conversions and numbers need to be properly formatted per WP:MOSNUM and whatever else. The one that stuck out at me was 16-in. Should it not be expanded to inches? You need between numbers and units. 2700 lb jumps out at me. The same goes for "5"/54 (12.7 cm)". I think the " should be expanded as some readers might not understand it.- Other than that, count me as a support. I think the other objections are mainly questioning the notability which is a non-issue in my eyes. It is well-written and comprehensive as far as I can see. Well done. Woody (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I replaced three instances of stand alone measurements with US and Metric measurments, and reconfigured all instances inches to in to match the mm measurements in the articles, I also removed the " you commented on. I did not see anything governing the use of non-breaking spaces with regards to percentages or monetary values, and thus left those measurements alone. Is this better? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose (continued from above, not a separate oppose) I have stated my opposition to this article in the past, but many of my original problems seem to have been either taken care of in the article or changed. I am disappointed that my comments were not addressed on this page and request that they be done here in the future (any format for a response, including comments after each problem, are acceptable and appropriate).
I am also disappointed in the hostile and threatening manner I have been treated with regards to this review, but I too have been known to get edgy in FACs, so I'm willing to overlook this with no malice towards said editor.
Seeing others' interest in this subject (especially Raul's), I think it is appropriate to re-re-re-clarify my objections and specify any additional problems that have occurred as a result of edits after my second initial review (<user mutters as he re-reads:> "second initial review"...<user shakes head>...only in Wikipedia...<user continues typing>).
For the sake of crystal clarity, I will state each general problem here and then cite all specific examples below:
- General
- It is well-written, comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and stable.
- (a) "Well-written" means that the prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard.
-
-
- Not done This article is not well-written because it is not of a professional standard.
-
- (b) "Comprehensive" means that the article does not neglect major facts and details.
-
-
- Done
-
- (c) "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
-
-
- Done
-
- (d) "Neutral" means that the article presents views fairly and without bias.
-
-
- Done
-
- (e) "Stable" means that the article is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and that its content does not change significantly from day to day.
-
-
- Done Note that this does not apply to edits made to satisfy FAC requests.
-
- It follows the style guidelines, including:
- (a) a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections;
-
-
- The lead is 3 paragraphs while the body is 7 paragraphs. With an article this short, the lead could be shorter.
-
- (b) a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming (see section help);
-
-
- Not done Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links.
-
- (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[4] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c). (See citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.)
-
-
- Done
-
- It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
-
-
- Done
-
-
- It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
-
-
- Not done I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs, incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article as a wonderful addition, and this page converted to a re-direct.
-
-
This will be done working from the top down, getting into the technical aspects, and then diving into the overall layout (and realize this is being done as a courtesy, not because I feel it is a requirement). It should also be noted, that I this is not my first comprehensive review. Note that any incredulity on my part is for dramatic effect only to emphasize the problem and more clearly define the issue.
So, without further ado:
- Prose issues
-
- Lead
- "This allowed her to gain eight knots in speed, the ability to transit the locks of the Panama Canal, and to increase the number of anti-aircraft guns." How on earth does changing an order make a ship faster? How can an order "allow" it to do so. Before the order was it not permitted to go as fast? Are there some speed limit signs I missed the last time I was on the high seas? How does an order give something an ability? How does it increase a number guns? Rephrase accordingly. Violation of 1a.
-
- The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Rearrange the sentence to read "Adherance to the Iowa-class layout rather than the Montana-class layout allowed BB-65 to gain eight knots in speed, carry more 20 mm and 40 mm anti-aircraft guns, and transit the locks of the Panama Canal; however, the move away from the Montana-class layout left BB-65 without a reduction in the heavier armaments and without the additional armor and that were to have been added to BB-65 during her time on the drawing board as USS Montana."
- Raul, thanks for your input. For the sake of clarity, my issue is not so much with the comparisson, but the word choice. It should read something like, "This change resulted in an increased maximum speed for the BB-65 due to a reduction in armor..." It the change from Montana to Iowa "allows" nothing, but results in an actual change. "Allow" implies that the shipbuilders are now permitted to do something, when, in fact, they were directed to do something. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The ship was ordered as a Montana class ship (big guns, heavily armored) but the order was changed to an Iowa class (fewer guns, less armor). Less ship mass = more speed. This was fairly straightforward to me. Raul654 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- "The cost was the loss of her additional armor..." She actually "lost" nothing except on paper. Orders change all the time. It's like saying I wanted a car with a 5 lite engine, but at the last minute, I got one with 4 liters. I "lost" nothing. Your word choice is inappropriate here. In short, comparing the two classes is appropriate, but this phrasing isn't. Violation of 1a.
-
- Rephrased per your suggestion.
- "Her construction was canceled in August 1945..." Who cancelled it? Congress? The President? The Navy? The War Department? This is the danger of using passive voice. It doesn't directly state what happened. Try "In August 1945 Congress cancelled..." Violation of 1a.
- "but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up." Amazingly nonspecific. The hull "remained" where? Was it just the hull? The picture provided does not seem to indicate it was merely the hull that was left behind. "broken up"? Is that a technical term? It makes it sound as if it just fell apart due to pressure or deterioration. In reality, it was disassembled by workmen and sold for scrap, right? Violation of 1a.
-
- I assume the Navy cancelled the battleship; usually official reports stipulate when second ro third parties alter or cancel USN construction orders. Since assupmtion is the mother of all screwups I will look into tracking that down for you.
- "Because Illinois was only 22% complete at the time she was not considered for any significant rebuild programs" Why? cost I assume? political pressure to spend money elsewhere? Too much work to do? Not enough time? why not enough time/money? Caught in a post-wartime drawdown? etc. Violation of 1a.
- "while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." What does this have to do with the USS Illinois? (I know contrast later, but it doesn't need to be in the lead). Did you really just use the word "floated" in an article about a Navy ship? A bit informal of an informal word choice there, but I must admit excellent use of a pun (this ship did "float" while the Illinois didn't). Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:LEAD and WP:PEACOCK
-
- I hadn't put those two words togather, but now that you mention it is a great pun. Perhaps "proposed" would be a better word. In any case that sentence was deleted from the introduction.
- "Like her sister ship USS Kentucky (BB-66), Illinois was still under construction at the end of World War II. Her construction was canceled in August 1945, but her hull remained until 1958 when it was broken up...while several proposals were floated to complete her sister ship Kentucky as a guided missile battleship." Serious overuse of the pronoun "her". Please vary your usage at least a little bit (not related in any way to this discussion). You don't need "sister ship" in the paragraph twice. Violation of 1a.
-
- Out of the lead in its entirety.
- Design
- "BB-65 began life in mid-1930s as the USS Montana, the lead ship of her class of dreadnought battleships. " She isn't "alive" at all. Please remove colorful language. What is a "dreadnought" battleship? Perfect time for a wikilink if I ever saw one. Violation of 1a.
-
- Reworded and wikilinked
- "She would have fielded three more 16 in (406.4 mm) guns than those mounted aboard the Iowa-class, a more powerful secondary battery of 5 in (127 mm)/54 caliber DP mounts,[1] an increase in armor that was to enable Montana to withstand the effects of the 16 in (406.4 mm) caliber guns and the 2,700 lb (1,224.7 kg) ammunition she and her Iowa-class sisters were to carry." Again, the difference in ships is specifically limited to theoretical differences between classes of ships and would be more appropriate in the class articles. It just isn't needed here, IMHO.
-
- noted, but not addressed. Its not that I do not want to adress this, its just that we see things differently on this point, and I prefer to see it here for ths sake of comprehensiveness, IMHO it helps the article by making it well written.
- "The increase in Montana’s firepower and armor came at the expense of her speed and her Panamax capabilities, but the latter issue was to be resolved through the construction of a third, much wider set of locks at the Panama Canal, which would have enabled Montana to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans without the need to move around the tip of South America.[2]" See previous for more info. By linking USS Illinois and BB-65, it seems to me you have exclusively eliminated the USS Montana. There is no need to include such information here. Is "move" the right word? You mean "sail"? This sentence is very long. Please shorten or break into two sentences.'Violation of 1a.
-
- changed moved to sail per your suggestion and broke up the sentence per your suggestion.
- "By 1942 the United States Navy shifted its building focus from battleships to aircraft carriers after the successes of carrier combat in both the Battle of Coral Sea and, to a greater extent, the Battle of Midway." Add commas for readability, but excellent sentence otherwise. Violation of 1a.
-
- My apologies, I thought they were already in the article. This has been adressed.
- " As a result the construction of the U.S. fleet of Essex-class aircraft carriers had been given the highest priority for completion in the U.S. shipyards." Again, passive voice. Who gave the carriers highest priority?Violation of 1a.
-
- The USN; citation provided.
- "The Essex-class carriers were proving vital to the war effort by allowing the Allies to gain and maintain air supremacy in the Pacific Theatre of World War II, and were rapidly becoming the principle striking arm of the United States in the ongoing effort to defeat the Empire of Japan." Wikilinks needed for "Empire of Japan" Again, poor use of the word allow. They aren't merely permitting something, they are "enabling". As for the "striking arm", I think the Army, Marines, and Air Force might disagree on their role being stated this way, though battleship use was certainly down with the advent of carrier operations. Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:PEACOCK
-
- Good point.
- "It was for this reason that the United States accepted certain shortcomings in the armor for their North Carolina-class battleships, South Dakota-class battleships, and Iowa-class battleships in favor of their additional speed, which enabled these battleship classes to steam at a comparable speed with the Essex-class and provide the carriers with the maximum amount of anti-aircraft protection.[5]" "It was for this reason" = wordiness. Try "Accordingly". "certain" shortcomings? why not just "shortcomings? Again a long sentence that could be reduced in wordiness. Violation of 1a.
-
- Addressed.
- No mention of Iowa-class specifications in its design section. Why? Violation of 1a.
-
- I felt the development section to be a better place for that information. I can move it if you wish.
- Development
- "She would now be the fifth of the six authorized ships of the Iowa class of battleships.[8][6]" VERY poor verb choice. "would now be"? how about "was designated"? or something similar Violation of 1a.
-
- Removed it altogather.
- "Like her Iowa-class sisters, Illinois was to cost $125 million and take roughly 30 to 40 months to complete." $125 million in what country? what timeframe? $125 million adjusted for 2007? 1930? 1945? Why "roughly"? how rough? A little informal. Do you mean "approximately"? Violation of 1a. and 2. Specifically WP:$
-
- Ours, of course. This figure needs to be taken with a grain a salt, but by adjusting 125 million on the consumer price index the total price comes to approximately 1.8 billion in 2008 dollars.
- "Her keel was laid down at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on 15 January 1945." "laid down" should be "laid". Do we really need "Philadelphia" twice? Perhaps PNP in P,P? or simply eliminate the second usage altogether. That's what Wikilinks are for, IMHO. Violation of 1a.
-
- Linked to both and added an in for good measure.
- "Like Kentucky, Illinois differed from her earlier sisters in that her design called for an all-welded construction, which would have saved weight and increased strength over a combination riveted/welded hull
of the typeused on the four completed Iowa-class ships." Note wordinessViolation of 1a.
-
- Noted and adressed.
- "Engineers considered retaining the original Montana-class
-typearmor for added torpedo and naval mine protection (the newer scheme would have improved Illinois’ armor protection by as much as 20%);[11] however, this was rejected due to time constraints and Illinois wasbeingbuiltalong the regularwith an Iowa-class hull design.[12]" 20% more what? Strength? coverage? protection from shockwaves? corrosion? Split into two sentences and remove parenthesis.Violation of 1a.
-
- The way I interpret this is protection from torpedoes, naval mines, and her own intended ammunition of 16"/50 heavy shells. This is touched on in the parent class article, but the Iowa class armour scheme was somewhat inadaquet for the battleship class. I can add to that info to the article if it would make you feel better.
- "Funding for the battleship was provided in part by "King Neptune", a hereford swine who was auctioned across the state of Illinois as a fund raiser, and
wasultimately responsible for raising $19 million in war bonds[13] (equivalent to about $200 million in 2007 adjusted dollars).[14]" Violation of 1a.
-
- Got it.
- "Illinois construction was canceled and then scrapped after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[8][6]" "scrapped" implies the ship was sold for scrap metal, but she wasn't. What is the difference here between the two verbs? Why was it cancelled after the atmoic bombings? Violation of 1a.
-
- Ostensably nothing, but I will check be sure.
- "She was struck from the Naval Vessel Register on 12 August 1945,[10][15] but her incomplete hull (at the time 22% finished) was retained along with her sister Kentucky until 1958 when both incomplete ships were broken up. She was scrapped in her dry dock on the builder's ways starting in September 1958.[16] Although her sister ship Kentucky (BB-66) was considered for a rebuild to make her into a guided missile battleship (BBG)—by removing the aft turret and installing a missile system—at the time of her cancellation, Kentucky was 73.1% complete with construction halted at the first deck.[12][17] By contrast, the Illinois was only 22% complete and thus was not afforded the same option." So was the Kentucky sold for scrap or completed? I'm confused.
-
- Ive scrapped nearly all of the section since it was confusing. Kentucky was not completed.
- "...an Associated Press
reportarticle published in 1983 seemed to indicate that the bell was donated to theNROTC unitat the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign in an article published in 1983.[19] According to the AP, the bell previously resided in a Washington museum until finding its new home with the Fighting Illini football team in 1982;[19] since then, the bellhasis traditionallybeenrung by NROTC members in a cumulative manner when the football team scores a touchdown or goal.[18]" In a cumulative manner? What the heck does that mean? Violation of 1a.
-
- Cumulative meaning they start from zero and stop when they hit the number of points the team currently has on the board.
- Technical problems
- References still missing needed information (like access dates for websites). Violation of 2. Specifically WP:CITE
- There should be a non-breaking space -
between all numbers and their units of measurement. For example, instead of 61cl, use 61 cl, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 61 cl.[?] Violation of 2. Specifically [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)
-
- I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
- Please see User:BQZip01/FA Tips for exactly how to fix this. — BQZip01 — talk 23:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I thought I had this addressed earlier, but with the addition of newer material I will go back and check to ensure non breaking spaces are present.
- Units of measurement|Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)]]
-
- Spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[?] Specifically, an example is 16 in. Violation of 2. Specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers)
- Question:do the conversion templates support this layout scheme? If they don't I will go back and replace such instances by hand.
- Layout problems
- Half of the sections are the references/footnotes and external links. Ergo, it is not "substantial" This is actionable through an expansion of the material. (See the next item for more information) Violation of 3b.
- I feel this article may be representative of the body of knowledge on the subject, but is inappropriate for a featured article. After all, we have stubs that are certainly comprehensive, given the body of knowledge, but have no business being a featured article. This information could easily be consolidated down a few paragraphs and incorporated into the Iowa class battleship article and this page be converted to a re-direct. As a stand-alone article, I feel it fails this requirement. Violation of 4.
-
- Again, I can not adress that issue here becuase it is a differnce of opinion between us and what constitutes an FA. Nonetheless, I thank you for the specific examples provided, and will continue to work on addressing the issues present to the best of my knowlage. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Please understand this is not necessarily exhaustive and I reserve the right to add more to it. In short, I don't feel this meets the standards of an FA. — BQZip01 — talk 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Left unanswered comments for now until all points have been addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Comment I believe that User:BQZip01 has now opposed this FAC twice (here and the first oppose). Only one should count and one should probably be struck for clarity. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Second instance annotated accordingly. Fair enough? — BQZip01 — talk 18:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Support While the article is short I believe it meets all the criteria for a Featured Article, although it does need date accessed for web refs. I made two minor edits to the article reading it for this FAC. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Support I think most of the people do not support this nomination because tha article is too short, but in my opinion, even if it's short, it meets all criteria for FA. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. The rigourous FAC process has improved this article, making it worthy of the little brass star. I would create a stub article to fix the red link in the "Design" section, but other than that I give this article a thumbs-up. Coemgenus 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I think that this article fully meets the FA criteria and clearly demonstrates the advantages of Wikipedia not being a paper Encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with short articles IMO (though the ones I work on tend to end up bloated). --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Jim Bowie
This article about a legendary American frontiersman is currently a Good Article. It is comprehensive, well cited, and well-written. There has been much speculation about Bowie's life and the facts are often mixed with legend. I've attempted to address the various stories about his life and death in as neutral a manner as possible. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- A quick google is showing me photographs of the subject that should be pd. Might be nice additions.--Docg 18:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Most of the photos that appear on a Google search are variations on the same one that is currently used in the infobox. Bowie was only known to have sat for one portrait, and this is it. There are other images that show Bowie portrayed in various movies, but I didn't think any of those were notable enough to include in the article. Open to a mind change on that, though.... Karanacs (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments—Weak support; the writing is much improved. Please "fix the." final punctuation in "The Alamo" section where quotes start within a WP sentence; and I see at least one caption with a final period closing what is just a nominal group rather than a full sentence (Lopez). Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- MOS: hyphenate "19th-century" when a double adjective.
- "the then-vice governor"—remove the hyphen.
- Why you'd want to spell out "nineteen/th" but use numerals here ("his father owned 8 slaves, 7 horses, 11 head of cattle, and 1 stud horse") is beyond me. Better to spell out single-digits; I see "30" later. See MOS.
- How do you "gift" a servant? Were they slaves?
- Audit for ungainly repetitions, e.g., "... many British knife manufacturers were producing Bowie knives, shipping many of them ..."
- Uncomfortable merging of two different ideas in this sentence: "The design of the knife continued to evolve, and it is generally agreed to have a blade 8.25 inches (21.0 cm) long and 1.25 inches (3.2 cm) wide, with a curved point."
- "700,000 acres (2,834 km²)"—No, hectares please.
- "most of it in land with questionable titles"——>"most of it in land of questionable title".
- I hope that Hopewell (1994) is an authoritative text; it dominates your citations list. Ensure that there's consistently a space after "pp.".
These are very random samples of why at least an hour by a good copy-editor is necessary. Tony (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- THANK YOU for your comments. I've implemented all of your suggestions. I assume that the servants mentioned were slaves, but it was not specifically stated. Hopewell is the definitive biography. Several other biographies have been produced for children, but no (or few) other scholarly works focus specifically on Bowie. Karanacs (talk) 04:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. A nicely structured and well-written article. I do have a question mark over this sentence though: "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to help keep the peace, primarily by chasing Indians". Makes it sound like a game of tag. How does "chasing Indians" help keep the peace? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I rewrote the sentence to be "Stephen F. Austin founded the group by employing up to thirty men to keep the peace and protect the colonists from attacks by hostile Indians." I think you are right and this makes more sense. Karanacs (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: I left messages on the talk pages of User:Mike Christie, User:Casliber and User:Dweller asking them to take a look at the article, as I've reviewed several of Mike's (and hoped he could return the favor) and I've seen that Casliber and Dweller review a lot of articles. I am by no means asking them to support the article, I'd just like more eyes on it so that we can figure out what else could be improved. Karanacs (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Dweller
- Q. If only one person escaped from the Alamo, how could there be eyewitnesses (plural) to the moving the bed story?
- The article is sparsely illustrated. I dislike illustrations inserted purely for aesthetics but as there are so few (1!) of the subject, you can easily justify including some pictures of some of the major personalities referred to substantially in the text.
- I second the suggestion made above by Tony that this gets a thorough copyedit by someone not previously associated with the article. I noticed lots of irritating niggles that detract from an otherwise excellent article. I'd rather give a thorough review once this has been done. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Only one man deserted from the Alamo. While all of the defenders died, the Mexican army spared the women and children and two slaves. I've added a sentence that specifically mentions that. I've also added two images of others important in the Alamo fight (William B. Travis and Santa Anna). I've also put in a request to have User:BQZip01 help with copyediting and am waiting to hear from him. Thanks for your time. Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments prose is fair and I'm wading though. The Early Years has a bit of 'and then X happenedd, and then Y, and then Z...', which is I guess dependent on the information known and maybe cannot be helped. But any descriptors of episodes you can add would be appreciated (eg extent of his fathers' injuries, or fact that reading and writing was unusual at the time. Census literacy figures may be good. More later cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was perplexed by 'gifted' too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 22:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- further establishing his reputation - as a what? Also if he already had a reputation, needs a different verb here. 'boosting' or somthing similar but less colloquial. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Anglo colonists - I wouldn't use this like this. Bit colloquial - 'English-speaking'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- rumblings, - tad colloquial - 'rumours of unrest'? or something similar? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments Support. A fine, detailed article. I have a few questions and suggestions; not many of these are necessary for me to support.
Bowie and his brother Rezin enlisted in the Louisiana militia in late 1814. The War of 1812 ended on 24 December that year…: does "that year" mean 1814? I think it must, and reading the rest of the sentence clarifies the sequence. However, because of the date in the name of the war, this is a slightly disconcerting thing to read. (I know nothing about the war of 1812 and couldn't have told you if it lasted till 1814 or not.) If you can find a rephrasing that reads less oddly, that would be handy.- I'm a bit puzzled by this too, on further investigation. Although the Treaty of Ghent was signed in December 1814, ending the War of 1812, it appears that Jackson didn't immediately get to hear the news, as he was still fighting in January 1815: "Unaware of the peace, Jackson's forces moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, in late 1814 to defend against a large-scale British invasion. Jackson defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans on 8 January, with over 2,000 British casualties and fewer than 100 American losses. It was hailed as a great victory, making Andrew Jackson a national hero, eventually propelling him to the presidency." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
he joined the Long expedition in an effort to free Texas from Spanish oversight. I'd suggest making this "he joined the Long expedition, an effort to free Texas from Spanish rule". I'd eliminate "in" because it's not Bowie's effort, it's the expedition's effort -- Bowie just joined the effort. I don't like "oversight" as it implies that the state already had some form of independence, and there was merely some notional oversight, rather than actual Spanish rule.
- I've fixed this to be "the Long expedition, an effort to liberate Texas from Spanish rule." Karanacs (talk)
There are a couple of places where a map would be handy for those not familiar with the local geography. None are necessary for FA, though, so I've posted those suggestions at the article talk page.Struck to make sure this is not interpreted as part of an oppose; we can continue this on the article talk page.The story of his partnership with Lafite is remarkable. You make it clear that the law allowed for the refund of half the price of the slaves. However, the whole scheme seems so transparently fraudulent that I'd like the article to more directly affirm that the whole thing was completely above-board, if it was. Did the state actually know all the facts, including Lafite's involvement? Was everything Bowie did legal? If so, I think we need to be left in no doubt about it -- especially given that Bowie was comfortable skirting the law on other occasions.- The sources don't make it clear what the state officials knew, but I doubt that Lafitte's involvement would have been publicly known at that time. The state laws don't appear to have addressed the possibility that a slave smuggler would inform on himself; I doubt the legislature would have intended this to happen, but this wouldn't be the first LA law to have giant loopholes in it. (My favorite-until recently, it was illegal to buy alcohol if you were under 21 but legal to sell it anyone over 18). Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It's a pity the sources don't say more about that. It would be nice to clarify if you ever find a source.
-
If the cause of Cecilia Wells' death is known, I think it would be good to include it.When he marries Ursula, you quote an amount in pesos shortly followed by an amount in dollars. I don't know how these are related, and I think that most readers will not. You may not be able to find anything like an exact exchange rate, but for this context I think it would be enough if you could say something like: "$223,000…many times more than the dowry contract required" or "not quite enough for the dowry" or whatever. (I'm guessing the former is more likely to be true.) If you can get an exchange rate, I'd suggest quoting the approximate dollar value of the pesos.Is "Anglo" used in the historical works? It is a current colloquialism and I wondered if it was the standard term.- If I understand the sequence correctly, Bowie, while a Mexican citizen and married to the daughter of a Mexican government official, ambushes a Mexican army, and then returns to San Antonio where he is not in any trouble for his actions. Am I missing something? Why wouldn't his ambush have annoyed the Mexican government? Did they not know who he was?
- Mexico had no idea what to do with those pesky colonists and tried to ignore them until 1835. There were very few Mexican troops in the state, and they primarily tried to fend off Indian attacks. I'm not sure how to clarify this better in the article—do you have any suggestions? Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- After reviewing the sources, I was able to add a paragraph just before this that details that Mexico was actually in the midst of a little civil war at the time, and the commander Bowie defeated was on the losing side. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- How about a sentence right after "…marched the soldiers back to Nacogdoches", saying something like you say just above, sourced if possible? E.g. "There were no repercussions for Bowie and his men for their attack on the Mexican army as there were very few Mexican troops in the state, and the Mexican government's policy was essentially to ignore the Anglo colonists." Mike Christie (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
the Convention of 1833, which formally requested independent statehood in Mexico: I am unclear on the meaning of "in" here. Does it mean that the independence would have still been within a Mexican federation? Or that the convention was held in Mexico?the San Felipe-Nacogdoches area of Texas: you wouldn't think of those two towns today as being in the same area, assuming you're talking about the current San Felipe, Texas. Back then, would this have meant "south eastern Texas"?- Tt would have meant the areas that included most of the Anglo land grants.
-
-
- I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed this. 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think it will read oddly to anyone who knows those locations, and won't convey much to those who don't. How about, in lieu of a map, changing it to say "the Anglo colony lands in east Texas"? Mike Christie (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Does Hopewell give any details about how we know about Bonham's resolution in favour of holding the Alamo? If it happens that the document itself survives, I think that would be interesting to mention. If it's just an eyewitness report, no need to add anything.The story of the line in the sand: I am baffled by this: "After its initial publication, this account was confirmed by several other eyewitnesses, but the story can only be authenticated by the word of the reporter": if there are other eyewitnesses, then surely the reporter is not the only person who can authenticate it?
-
- I am striking this; I see you've clarified it in the article.
That's everything. A very interesting article. Mike Christie (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments.
- I've struck one more point and am now happy to support; I have done so above. I still think the use of "authenticate" is a little odd; I'd just reduce that sentence to "…as Rose admitted to embellishing other articles…" but that's your choice. Mike Christie (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak OpposeSupport by — BQZip01 — talk
"Stories of his frontier spirit made him one of the most colorful folk heroes of Texas history." needs to be expanded upon in the body or removed from the lead.- I rephrased this sentence so that it actually makes sense now. The supporting evidence for the folk hero/legend part is in the Legacy section. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what was meant now. Much better phrasing. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I rephrased this sentence so that it actually makes sense now. The supporting evidence for the folk hero/legend part is in the Legacy section. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"(USA)" isn't necessary after Kentucky. Click the link to Kentucky if you don't know about it...- It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Seems reasonable enough. I did say weak oppose... — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- It's not prohibited either. There have been several discussions about this on the Village Pump, and usually consensus says it's fine to have the country there. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"His father had been injured..." should be was injured. Keep an eye out for "had + verb"- Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...I see your point there. No worries, my bad. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Had is the correct verb form here. That is past perfect, which is used when describing an event that happened before another event in the past. The paragraph begins with "Bowie was born"...(in the past), and then goes further into the past to speak about his parents' marriage (had + past tense).Karanacs (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Although all of the Bowie children learned to read and write in English, Bowie and his elder brother Rezin could also read, write, and speak Spanish and French fluently.[6] The children were also taught how to survive on the frontier, as well as how to fish and run a farm and plantation. Bowie became proficient with pistol, rifle, and knife.[7] He had a reputation for fearlessness, and as a boy one of his Indian friends taught him how to rope alligators.[8]" Be careful here. I realize you are talking about Jim Bowie, but everyone mentioned in the paragraph is a Bowie as well. Stick with "Jim" for this paragraph to limit ambiguity.
"Shortly before Bowie's father died in 1818 or 1819, he gave Bowie and his brother Rezin each ten servants..." should be "their father."- Fixed. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Bowie became famous as a result of a feud..." How famous? presumably the people involved in the land disputes knew of him and took him all the way to the Supreme Court? How about "nationally famous"? "Internationally famous"?- Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "...nationally famous Fightin' Texas Aggie Band" now has a competitor I suppose. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Changed to "internationally famous" Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"widow's weeds" what the heck are these?- That is the type of clothing that widows wore in those days. It's not a common term today (because specific mourning clothing is not that common anymore), but a Google search still turns up 15,000 uses of the term [35]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps a footnote or a stub article as to what they actually are? — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- That is the type of clothing that widows wore in those days. It's not a common term today (because specific mourning clothing is not that common anymore), but a Google search still turns up 15,000 uses of the term [35]. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
More links of The Battle of Alamo to "Alamo" would be appropriate; at least one in the paragraphs about the Alamo.- First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- good 'nuff — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- First paragraph in that section now has a wikilink to Alamo mission, and there is a wikilink to Battle of the Alamo later in the section, when the siege begins. Good catch! Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Furthermore, from the semi-automated peer review program...
-
Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
- The only dates that aren't wikilinked are the accessdates in the references, primarily because there is still argument on what the template is supposed to do. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I would go ahead an link those appropriately anyway, but I won't hold up the nomination for this. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “Allpigs are pink, so we thought ofa number ofways to turn them green.”
- I readily admit that some of the sections do have a lot of these terms, primarily because nothing is known for certain about parts of Bowie's life, and it's hard to be more specific. Karanacs (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fair explanation. History about people's pasts is often murky. I just wanted you to be aware of it. It seems reasonably addressed. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- That said, these are simple fixes and should be easy to change. Once addressed/changed you have my complete support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- You have my support, but please address the ambiguity concerns. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- still very weak oppose, but simply addressing these issues will likely be enough for my support. — BQZip01 — talk 23:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Interesting, gripping even, and meaty article about an iconic figure. Well done. --ROGER DAVIES talk —Preceding comment was added at 09:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Exmoor
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. It has undergone major revisions, particularly copyediting and providing suitable citations, during and after its GA promotion. It has been a collaborative effort by several editors, including members of the Somerset WikiProject and we will monitor the nomination and respond to comments.— Rod talk 12:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks great. Baldrick90 (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Comments by Moni3 I recently rewrote an article on a national park in the US, so I took a look at your article. I don't know if some issues are language and culture related - terms that are British that I don't get - but I have some suggestions:
- Done In the lead, one of your sentences starts with 71%. Can you either spell out the number or rephrase the sentence so it does not start with a numeral?
- Done In the first sentence, the linked "national park" is not capitalized, but in the second sentence, the unlinked term is (as well as in the first sentence under "Government and politics"). Can you make it consistent?
- Done The second paragraph under "Geology" has no citations. Neither does the second paragraph after "Rivers" (even if you have to cite a map).
- Done Under "Coastline" I read this sentence: "The Exmoor Coastal Heaths have been recognised as a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the diversity of species present." but I can't tell species of what - plants? animals? both?
- Done In "Climate" you state that December is the dullest month. I don't know what that means other than it's not very exciting. Can you restate that in terms relevant to climate?
- Done Can you add a slight detail explaining to the poor folk not in the UK what a grade I listed building means?
- Done There is a sentence about Holwell Castle, but it doesn't explain its significance in the history of the region. Can you expand that?
- Done Underneath that is a paragraph about the Simonsbath house, and a sentence about the Anchor herd of ponies. The sentences about the ponies seems out of place in the paragraph about the house. What is an Anchor herd and why is it important? (The sentence is repeated under "Fauna", too.)
- DoneWhy is "Chains" red linked in "Ecology"?
- Done There is a one-sentence paragraph about deer in "Fauna".
- DoneWhy are the birds that you named extinct? What happened to them?
- In "The Beast of Exmoor" the following sentences: "The Beast of Exmoor is a cryptozoological cat (see phantom cat) that is reported to roam Exmoor. Although there have been numerous eye witness sightings..." need citations. Who has reported it? Newspapers? Can you provide cited stories? The same with the eye witness sightings. Do park personnel confirm or deny its existence? What's the official word from the park on a mythical creature?
- Done This sentence in "Government and politics" is very difficult to understand: From 1954 local government was the responsibility of the county councils and, since 1997, by the Exmoor National Park Authority, however responsibility for the social and economic well-being of the local community remains with the district and county councils. Can you simplify it or break it into two sentences?
- Done The last sentence in "Government and politics" is a one-sentence paragraph. I don't know what SSSI's are, either. Can you clarify that?
- Done There is a one-sentence paragraph in "Sport". Can you expand it to describe the history of hunting in the park? What was hunted and for how long?
- DoneThe last paragraph in "Places of interest" has no citations. What is a "sea of snowdrops"?
- Done You can probably consolidate "Sport", "Places of interest", and "Cultural settings" into one "Activities" heading with those subheadings. Although I would suggest merging the information about the cultural settings into the "Places of interest" section. That way you won't have such a small section by itself. Are there park-sponsored activities, like hikes, lectures, etc. that are led by park personnel for educational purposes?
- Is there a map of the park you can provide as a visual?
I thought it was an interesting article - enough to make me want to go see it. Good luck on it! --Moni3 (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Initial response to Comments by Moni3 Thanks for your comments, I do forget that some UK terms are not universally recognised. I have addressed some of the points as indicated above. SSSI & listed buildings are defined in the links but I have added short summaries within the article. I will need a little more time to address some of the areas below:
- Done citations for paras in Geology & Rivers sections + "Places of interest" & "sea of snowdrops"?
- Done Chains (geological site) is an area - I will do a stub
- Done Birds no longer found - I will research/ask for expert help
- "The Beast of Exmoor" - I will research/ask for expert help
- Map - beyond my skills, but I will ask for help, but I am worried about achieving this in the FAC timescale
I hope that we will be able to meet these outstadning concerns & thank you for helping to improve the article.— Rod talk 18:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It looks much better, for sure. The National Park system websites here in the US offer maps as pdf files. Are there no maps available online for British National Parks?
- I would very much like to support the article. My only issue left is the section still about Holwell Castle. I can't tell if the castle was built to protect the forest. It rather seems as if the sentence is disconnected with the rest of the information about the sheep, wool, and royal forest. If there's no real connection between the sheep and royal forest with the castle, consider splitting it into its own paragraph and adding a couple sentences to describe the caste - we Americans tend to think castles look like Cinderella lives in it...as well, can you state who stated it "probably" was intended to guard the junction? Now it sounds like you're speculating. It sounds much better when you can cite an individual or agency who has done the speculating. --Moni3 (talk) 04:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Response Thanks for your comments. I have expanded the information on Holwell Castle with multiple references, into it's own paragraph - I don't think Cinderella would enjoy it, basically only grassy mounds are left! There is a map here which is included in the "Further Reading". As I understand the copyright laws.. in the US if it has been paid for by taxpayers it is put into the public domain. Here in the UK the use of maps is licenced (with hefty fees) by the Ordnance Survey, therefore I've asked a wikipedia editor who has created maps for local articles in the past to see if a map could be made for use on the article however this takes time.— Rod talk 09:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support - did the GA review, and helped out a little when it hit a setback. Great work since then, great article, compliant with FAC criteria. Good job! Rt. 21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support (was
Comment) - overall quite good, but some relatively minor changes are needed. I was bold and made some minor copyedits myself (feel free to revert if I introduced any errors), but these are ones I was not sure of:- Done(Lead) "The three largest settlements are Lynton and Lynmouth, Porlock and Dulverton, which..." I count four (and four separate wikilinks). If two somehow count as one settlement, please clarify this. If this is an error or vandalism, please fix it.
-
-
- Lynton & Lynmouth are at the top & bottom of the same cliff.
-
-
- Done(Geology) "They are largely of Devonian age (to which this area gave its name as it was first studied and described here) to early Carboniferous periods." Two problems here. First I think the phrase in parentheis is awkward - do geologists study ages or rocks? How about a new second sentence something like "The name Devonian comes from Devon as rocks of that age were first studied and described here"? Second, taking out the parenthesis shows the awkwardness of the remaining parts of the sentence: "They are largely of Devonian age to early Carboniferous periods." I think this is indicating the range of geologic ages represented here? Perhaps this would be better as "They are largely from the Devonian and early Carboniferous periods (the name Devonian comes from Devon, as rocks of that age were first studied and described here)."?
- DoneAlso, why is the sentence "Some moors are covered by a variety of grasses and sedges, while others are dominated by heather." in Geology when there is a Flora section? If the underlying rocks influence grass vs heather, say so explicitly. Otherwise, please move it or make clearer why it is in this section (However, most of the rock cannnot be seen as it is covered by moors...).
- Done(Coastline) Can you somehow indicate that Great Hangman is still in (or just on the border of) Exmoor?
- Done(Climate) Is it just "Exmoor" or "the Exmoor"? (in at least one other place too)
-
-
- I've found & removed two occurrences of this. The others are "the Exmoor X" or because of the context of the sentence seem appropriate.
-
-
- Done(History) "It is also likely that extraction and smelting of mineral ores to make tools, weapons, containers and ornaments in bronze and then iron started in the late late neolithic and into the bronze and iron ages.[22]" Is "late late neolithic" a typo? Could you say "very late neolithic" instead? This sentence is a bit awkward - since the bronze and iron ages are mentioned, could the metals themselves be removed, i.e. something like "It is also likely that extraction and smelting of mineral ores to make metal tools, weapons, containers and ornaments started in the very late neolithic, and continued into the bronze and iron ages.[22]"
- DoneThe Sheep farming paragraph goes from the Middle Ages to the 17th Century and a warden. The next paragraph, on Holwell Castle, is 11th and 12th centuries, then the paragraph after it is back to the warden and 17th Century. Could Holwell Castle be moved one paragraph earlier (swap it with sheep farming)?
- Done(Ecology) " North Exmoor covers 29,666 acres (12,005 ha) and includes the Dunkery Beacon and the Holnicote and Horner Water Nature Conservation Review sites, and the Chains Geological Conservation Review site. The site is nationally important for..." Which of three sites (my guess is North Exmoor is meant, perhaps just repeat that)(or is it the Chains)?
- DoneSince not everyone knows these bird species, perhaps modify "The heaths have strong breeding populations of [birds, including] Whinchat (Saxicola rubetra) and Stonechat (Saxicola torquata)."
- (Beast of Exmoor) "Although there have been numerous eyewitness sightings, many scientists believe it to be purely mythical. " needs a reference and it would help if one or two of the scientitsts in question could be identified by name (otherwise "many scientists believe" seems to be weasel words).
-
-
- This is difficult & it is hard to pin down any specifics - I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to support this but the local folklaw is so strong I think it deserves to be included.
-
-
- Done(Sport and Recreation) and (Places of Interest) both mention the Coleridge Way in too much repetitive detail - give the details in one place, mention the name but not too much else in the other place. Similar complaint for the Tarr Steps (from History).
- I hope this helps - if these are addressed, I will gladly support. I have also inquired about a map of the park itself. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Response - thanks for these comments and the edits you made. With the exception of the "Beast of Exmoor" I believe they have now been addressed. I would appreciate any help with the Beast section as I'm finding it very difficult to find anything definitive.— Rod talk 22:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Changed to Support. Glad to help - hope my edits were OK. Here are a couple of ideas re the Beast of Exmoor sentence - if a book has a quote that says something like that, you could just quote it and attribute the author. Or you could say something like "For example, the official Exmoor National Park website lists the beast under "Traditions, Folklore, and legends" [48]. Another option would be to quote a newspaper or magazine article on the beast. Another example, the BBC Science & Nature website calls Exmoor a "rugged and charismatic National Park, smothered with heather and offering plenty of walking options. It is also home to a range of wildlife, including ponies and the famous-yet-elusive beast of Exmoor. Allegedly." [49] Any sort of attribution to a reliable source showing that most are skeptical would be less weaselly than the current wording. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Support: No issues here that I can see. A really comprehensive and beautifully written article. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Archie Jackson
I'm nominating this article for featured article because ... it is a well written and comprehensive article that meets the featured article criteria. The article has had a thorough copy-edit, is fully referenced with inline citations and a wide range of appropriate images given the lifetime of the subject.
Jackson became ill and died at the peak of his career while still very young. This being the case, there is the temptation to lean towards hagiography when writing about him. I think we have managed to avoid this. Having said that, it is true that some observers at the time thought he was a better batsman than his contemporary Don Bradman and it is interesting, if not quite encyclopaedic to speculate on what might have been. Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support by Dweller
*Comment "He died at the age of 23, the youngest Australian Test cricketer to do so." is awkward English and a rather contrived and minor statistic for the Lead anyway. Why not run on the previous sentence with "and died aged just 23." or similar? --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"first grade" needs to be wikilinked.- Done
"Jackson and McDonald" - any connection to Jackson's family?- Done No connection, this is specifically stated in Frith. I have included a note to this effect, but will consider adding to the main body of the article if others feel strongly about this.
first reference to the Victoria team needs to be wikilinked.- Done
More to follow --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Note: I have changed "Jackson and McDonald" to "Jackson & McDonald" to agree with the source material. Keep the suggestions coming! -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
the arthur mailey story is nice. for those unfamiliar with sydney, it'd be good to know if it's a distance of ten yards, ten miles or somewhere in between! --Dweller (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)It wasn't far, the Sun building was on Elizabeth St (Note: The Sun is now defunct), adjacent to Martin Place. The distance would not have been more than half a mile and probably less, but without knowing exactly where Kippax's store was located, I can't be more accurate than that. Any ideas? -- Mattinbgn\talk 13:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
presumably the Test trial preceded Bradman's selection (and Jackson's omission) in 28-29, yet it's written the other way round --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done Of course it was, now moved as part of a rewrite of the paragraph.
article implies that in that series Australia selected Jackson because they lost the Ashes. Now, I know what you mean, but you've not really explained it. --Dweller (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done Now rewritten. Let me know if this still reads like causation.
Jackson "was limp". Odd choice of wording. Is that a quote? If so, quote marks please. Otherwise, perhaps "felt faint" or similar?
--Dweller (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
"limp" is the word used by Frith. I think it describes more than just faintness, but implies physical weakness as well. Will think on a suitable word.
-
No, don't bother. I agree with your assertion that it implies more than faintness. If it's Frith's word, use it - and put it in quote marks?--Dweller (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
I think I have a quote from Hunter Hendry I can use that may be better than quoting Frith. It doesn't use the word "limp" but does describe Jackson's appearance and condition from a eyewitness viewpoint. Currenty otherwise occupied but will get to it later today -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
"Jackson made no verbal reply, but hit the first ball from Larwood..." verbal reply is curious, but I understand what you mean, but how about "Jackson made no reply, but responded by hitting..." In the second half of the sentence, was this the first ball of the session, or some overs later when Larwood eventually bowled? If the former, word it "Jackson made no reply but responded by hitting the next ball..." --Dweller (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done I was trying to say that the shot was his reply to Bradman, but you are right, "verbal reply" sounds a little tautological. Your version is a big improvement and I have used it.
What kind of haemorrhage killed him? Brain (ie stroke)? --Dweller (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm done now. --Dweller (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) By the way, this is an excellent article and I'll be happy to support when we're done with the above. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Thanks for dealing with all my quibbles. This is a FA quality article. Kudos to the creators. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments—Needs further scrutiny for MOS and 1a, but this is much better written than previous Austr. cricket articles. Nice work overall, but I can't yet support.
-
- Caption: "The 1930 Australian touring team. Jackson is second from the left in the back row"—Full sentence at end; needs final period. MOS breach right at the start: read about en dashes.
-
-
- Done Space now added either side on en dash between birth and death details. A search did not find any others.
-
-
- Lead spoilt by: "Ignoring medical advice, Jackson returned to cricket with a local team but his health continued to deteriorate and died aged just 23." His health died? "at the age of just" would be nicer. "... ; however, his health ..."
-
-
- Done Reworded along the lines of your suggestion, a big improvement
-
-
- "Prior to"—a pet hate of mine; "before"?
-
-
- Done All replaced, and I can't blame the copy-editor for those. I use 'prior to' to mean 'before' all the time and never considered it much before. Once again, 'before' is much better
-
-
- "he had success"? Probably need to reword for more specific meaning.
-
-
- Done Added details on success, giving a specific score is clearer than "he made runs against..."
-
-
- Clumsy: "His Test and first-class career coincided with the early playing years of Don Bradman, to whom he was often compared, some observers rating Jackson as the better batsman before they toured with the 1930 Australian team." --> "His Test and first-class career coincided with the early playing years of Don Bradman, to whom he was often compared; some observers rated Jackson as the better batsman before they toured with the 1930 Australian team." But still, the observers rated before the tour, or referred retrospectively to that period? (I'm too lazy to look at your references.) And does "they" refer to the observers? No, but needs to be clear. Tony (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and suggestions; they have been very useful and have improved the article significantly. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 15:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for attending to those random examples, but I see little evidence that the text as a whole has been improved. I took a sample half-way down; the first sentence I saw was this: "Jackson was included for the 1930 tour squad, a relatively inexperienced team with only four players returning to England from the tour four years prior." Should that be "included in"? "Prior" is a dreadful way of ending a sentence. A little later, "Illness to Ponsford"—very odd preposition. It needs a word-nerd to go through the whole article properly. Someone who's unfamiliar with the text. Locate by searching the edit history page of similar articles—see edit summaries for people who did the copy-editing grunt work. Tony (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have re-written the sentence you mention above. It was a recently added sentence, included in response to Dweller's concerns. I am aware this will not lead you to support this article. I will see about getting someone to take a look at it as suggested. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\talk 12:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments a very good read and quite tragic really. Some things I noticed...
- Team mate or Teammate?
-
-
- Done, neither, "team-mate"; adopted from usage at Sid Barnes, the most recent cricket FA.
-
-
- Cigarette card caption could be made more friendly!
-
-
- Done, hopefully a little friendlier.
-
-
- Debut with or without an accent?
-
-
- Done. Settled on début with an accent. This is used in Sid Barnes, the most recent cricket FA. "debut" is still used in the infobox and in the notes section where it is included in the title of a source. Does this need a general discussion as an MOS issue?
-
-
- Not wishing to be too nit-picky but isn't one stone 6.4kg when correctly rounded?
-
-
- Done 6.35029318 kg to be exact. :-) Fixed now.
-
-
- "...daring declarations..." this needs explanation really.
-
-
- Done, I think. Please let me know what you think
-
-
- "The tour was a financial success, but exhausting." a little odd for me. Financially successful to Jackson or everyone? Exhausting for Jackson or everyone?
-
-
- Done. with a quotation. Frith says "...most of them were exhausted." but the quote sums up Jackson's feelings about the tour, despite his success.
-
-
- Ref [23] (Roebuck) is missing an en-dash separator.
-
-
- Done, nbsp instead of ndash. Serves me right for editing at 1.00 in the morning
-
- All minor and support is close. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support good work, all my comments dealt with. As for debut, not sure. It's a general MOS issue which we don't really need to solve here, just as long as we're consistent throughout the article. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support good work. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 22:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Western Chalukya architecture
previous FAC (22:39, 7 January 2008)
This is the second nomination of this article for FAC review. The previous nomination was made on November 27th 2007. The article has undergone extensive copy edits from users; user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore and others. Two other users; User:Giano II and User:Rodw have provided valuable suggestions and <these have been implemented. Improvements in the form of disambiguation of complicated words, addition of line diagrams to illustrate floorplans are in place. FAC director Raul has communicated that it is okay to re-nominate, and I am confident the article is in good shape to become a FA. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The picture arrangement looks fine to me but I know from experience this may not be the case on all screens when a page is so well illustrated? Anyone having any problems? I would still like to see a more rounded concluding section - appreciation of the style today etc. Its a very good page, and I'm ready to support. It just needs winding up - it seems to conclude mid-stream.Giano (talk) 23:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply I will work on the new section right away to wind up the article. thanks Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Abstain Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. This article should not have been an FAC the first time around on November 27, given the shabby state it was in. It is insulting to all the reviewers (who weighed in with their helpful comments in the first FA review) to renominate it less than 24 hours after failing the FA candidacy. The prose in the article remains shabby: it is not only not brilliant, it is not even at the level of a good high-school essay. I challenge anyone on Wikipedia, user:Raul654 or user:Giano_II or anyone else to defend the prose in this article. I am happy to request mediation if need be. Better yet, here is one random paragraph. Can you find one sentence in the paragraph that doesn't have some error of grammar, logic, style, cohesion, or coherence?
The height of the mantapa and the size of the temple are in general dependent on the length of the stone shafts the architects were able to obtain from the quarries to make pillars. The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts starting from the portion above the base of the pillar up to the neck of the capital.[5] The height of the temple was constrained by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material. The weight of the superstructure on the walls of the shrine put limits on its height.[5] The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions. The very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum. Ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple comes only through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings by Chalukyan architects, who did not use mortar in their construction.
I will point out the sentence-by-sentence errors later, but after forty days as an FAC, is this some kind of joke? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please also see my post Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#Western_Chalukya_architecture:_What_happened_to_.22brilliant_prose.3F.22
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe to you, it seems like a waste of time, but Dinesh followed advice from Raul654 and Giano II, who told him to submit the article back to FAC if he felt it was ready. Dinesh said above that the article has undergone a thorough copyedit and been subjected to intense scrutiny from a number of editors. If you really think the article is overrun with grammatical errors, fix them yourself. If Dinesh and others are not aware of the errors you are referring to, how could they possibly make the necessary corrections? Nishkid64 (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why is not more uncivil to keep flogging a dead horse, to keep avoiding the hard work of nurturing the prose of an article, and to keep exploiting the goodwill of the FAC reviewers by turning the FAC into an unending peer review? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would any of the copy-editors who have provided the "intense scrutiny" care to defend the paragraph above? Would Raul654 or Giano II care to defend it? If they don't want to bother with the paragraph, would they care to explain the doozy, "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" Perhaps you yourself would like to attempt an explanation? Have you read the previous FAR? Half of the text there consists of my comments. Have you read my extended annotation (on the Talk:Western Chalukya architecture page) of two random paragraphs? Should I now be copy-editing the article sentence by sentence in the second FA review?
- Please be civil. Be courteous to the editors who worked on this article. It's quite frustrating when another user dismisses your work as severely flawed, full of errors. Also, let the other FAC reviewers make their own judgments, instead of generalizing that they are all going to be outraged by the state of this article. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. if you're in a relatively darkened temple, and the statue is lit up to be significantly lighter than the rest, and you can't at first glance see why that is, it certainly does add mystery... mystery as to why that object is more conspicuous than the rest. As for hunters, in my part of the woods, they carry spotlights (illegally, it's called "shining") to add mystery! The mystery they add is that the deer is so blinded and confused by the sudden light that it remains frozen in befuddlement and confusion, easily picked off. It's considered unsportsmanlike to confuse the deer so, which is why it's illegal. More generally, I would like to suggest that you might want to WP:AAGF, and try to be a bit milder in your comments. This editor is trying hard to improve the article. But, you have a valid point. I'm not as architecturally savvy as Giano is, and when I first read the article I could not make heads or tails of much of it, some of the passages you highlight as confusing are quite confusing to me as well. I think it COULD benefit from a thorough rewrite by someone other than the article's principle author with a view to making it more structured and more understandable. It was not the terms and placenames that gave me pause, it was the structure itself. ++Lar: t/c 15:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can't agree more with the latter half of your statement. If you read the first FA review, you will notice that I (and others) repeatedly say the same. As for spotlights (and I don't want to belabor this too much, seeing that I am largely in agreement with you), I am aware of how hunters use spotlights—I was being a little facetious above. I fail to see (though) how spotlights add mystery or for whom. Certainly not for the hunter, who is one part of the viewing audience; neither does it do so for the other deer (the other part of the viewing audience) as they prepare to decamp in fear. The spotlights might help create confusion (not mystery) in the quarry itself, but (like the deity) it is the object of illumination, not the viewer. You can justify the use of "mystery" all you want, but "mystery" is vague, and it doesn't enlighten the reader. Besides "mystery," is not the correct word here. "air of mystery," or "mystique," or "aura," or "mysteriousness" would be more accurate. Similarly, it is not the "source of light" (the light bulb) that creates mystery, but the lighting so provided. That's three errors already in one sentence. You can call it nitpicking, but the errors add up. Your point about being milder in my comments is well taken, but I didn't always sound like this. This has been going on for forty days. I have provided the bulk of the feedback in the first FA review. Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous that the author(s) are spending all their time in quick fixes in yet another FA review and in willy-nilly pushing the article to that ever elusive FAhood. Shouldn't they be working on the prose, reading for meaning, crafting the sentences, balancing one version against another, engaging in (and enjoying) the usual back and forth of the art of writing? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- The spotlighting adds mystery? I had thought spotlights made their objects more conspicuous. Wonder why hunters carry them ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- "artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum?" This was a common "architectural trick" in Ancient Egyptian architecture (when the sun would be reflected on copper pannels) and now it seems Indian architecture too - what needs to be explained about that, it is little different to todays spotlighting to highlight and add emphasis to an object. The obvious does not need to be explained. Giano (talk) 10:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- As for your facile injunction to be bold, do you really think I am not aware of it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- This page covers a vast and complex subject which is completely unfamiliar to many readers. It uses many place and real names which are also unfamiliar and do not trip readily off the tongue to those of us educated in the more northerly countries. - that in places makes the text seem a little laborious but that cannot be helped. One of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is written in English by people of all nationalities. Australians, Americans and Indians (Kannadigas to be precise) none of whom speak English in an identical fashion and thank God they don't. Structure and use of language will change from country to country but that does not mean it is wrong.
- This is an important page for Wkipedia's architecture section on an important and little understood subject. During the last FAC [52] Dineshkannambadi seemed to be falling over backwards to address concerns he also received much support and this edit [53] is enough to convince me that any remaining text problems are very minor and far outweighed by the quality of the content. It would be very easy to change the the text to make it sound as though it were written by an American or a Briton but that would not make it any better. Others may feel they would have tackled this vast subject in a different way and order and they are entitled to that valid opinion but it does not make the way Dinesh has chosen wrong. After a few more minor copyedits I will be supporting this page because it is important and the most comprehensive page on the subject on the internet and if it does not sound as though its author was born in Palermo, London or the Bronx then there is probably a very good reason. Wikipedia is lucky to have it. Giano (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- What am I saying now? As far as I'm aware this is my first comment in response to your comments. Obviously you do not like the page. I'm sure the FA Director has noted your objection. Giano (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I was comparing your remarks to your comment up top. I am in agreement, btw, with that comment; in fact in my first set of comments in the FA review on 17 December, I said as much: "Also, no satisfactory conclusion: after the last section, the reader is left hanging. I think the topic is fascinating, but the article needs to be rethought clearly with regards message and focus, and then rewritten clearly." That was three weeks ago. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, please. What are you saying now? That the prose might not meet the standards of American, British, or Australian English, but that it does meet the standards of Indian English? (I can see Mulk Raj Anand, R. K. Narayan and others turning over in their graves.) The grammatical and stylistic standards of Indian English are no different from those of other Englishes. Undigested ideas delivered in clunky prose appear alike in all forms of English, including Indian. If you think that is an issue, why don't we have user:Nichalp or user:Taxman weigh in? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Comment A map indicating the core/important areas of W. Chalukya architectural monuments has been added. This will help in identifying the locations (for those unfamiliar with Karnataka state).thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Prosing comment: how about this version of the paragraph? Hmmm. I do understand User:Fowler&fowler's frustration with the prose, even though I don't see any "errors", as such (unless we're seriously going to quarrel about en- and em-dashes). The skilled copyeditors have presumably eradicated those, as well as pleasingly widened the vocabulary.
- However, the paragraphs do suffer from some lack of coherence (hanging-together-ness, internal connections), and the sentence structure remains overly monotonous, in fact nearly all the sentences are the same shape (subject, followed by verb, followed by the rest). Coherence and syntactic variety aren't luxuries, they're necessary for "engaging" prose. Look at the "random paragraph" quoted by F & F above for an example. I've taken a shot at boldly rearranging it (including dividing it in two, for more intra-paragraph connectivity). Like this:
-
- "The pillars that support the roof of the mantapa are monolithic shafts from the base up to the neck of the capital.[5] Therefore, the height of the mantapa and the overall size of the temple are dependent on the length of the stone shafts that the architects were able to obtain from the quarries. The height of the temple is also constrained by the weight of the superstructure on the walls [5] and, since Chalukyan architects did not use mortar,[6] by the use of dry masonry and bonding stones without clamps or cementing material.
-
- The absence of mortar allows some ventilation in the innermost parts of the temple through the porous masonry used in the walls and ceilings. The modest amount of light entering the temples comes into the open halls from all directions, while the very subdued illumination in the inner closed mantapa comes only through its open doorway. The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum."
- Does that contain misunderstandings of the facts, or wrong terminology? Yes, probably, as I'm very ignorant of the subject. But is it easier to follow? You be the judge. Frutti di Mare (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC).
-
- Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oh I think it probably can! It's been done before. The mystery of the lighting comes from the startling drama of the deity seeiming to glow - the emphasis given by that light - in an age when spotlighting was not the norm must have been mysterious indeed. Obviously you feel that needs to be explained - well it can be. When Frutti has finished "in-use" I will make further edits tomorrow. There is a lot of very valuable and sourced information in the page, it just needs some spotlighting itself and it will be on the main page very shortly. Dinesh has doen a very good job here. Giano (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Are you even reading the text Giano II? It says, "The vestibule receives even less light, making it necessary to have some form of artificial lighting day and night. This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." What age are you talking about? Amazing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Look! You have had ample opportunity to copyedit, re-write the page yourself - and you clearly do not want to. Can some other people now be allowed to attempt this without constant interuption from you. It cannot transformed in 5 minutes - please just be patient. Giano (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yup, you do get it. There are still errors remaining (for no fault of yours), but the flow is already much better. Thus, in the first sentence, it is really enough to say, "Since the pillars supporting the roof were monolithic, the height reached by the mantappa depended on the lengths of the stone columns available in the quarries." There is really no need to add the bit about the base and capital; it is understood. Similarly, "shaft" is redundant, since pillars=capital+shaft+base. etc. etc. The point I am making is that rewriting in such fashion (as you have done) takes time. It requires balancing various components and reevaluating as the text size increases. It can't be done on the fly in an FAC process, whether the first or the second. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Proposal
-
-
- You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Is there anything inaccurate in what I have said? If so, please point it out. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- You'll be better off taking the article off the FAC mill altogether and then letting user:Mattisse rewrite the article. She is someone who writes very well, is already aware of many of the Karnataka architectural concepts, having co-written other articles with user:Dineshkannambadi. She, however, didn't write this article (as far as I can tell). That user:Dineshkannambadi's earlier articles are better written, is, I'm assuming, her contribution. See, for example, Hoysala architecture before her edits here, and after here. Notice the stark contrast. I am sure I can find similar disjuncts in the histories of some of user:Dineshkannambadi's other articles. Please also see her post on my talk page here. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- I am sorry that your feeling are hurt. That wasn't my intention. My suggestion to seek user:Mattisse's help was made in good faith. I truly believe it is the quickest method of fixing the problems on this page. Regards and apologies again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- F&F - No matter how valid your concerns are, it probably is best to try to phrase them in a way that doesn't seem like you're disparaging DK... I am afraid to an outside observer such as myself it looks harsh, while I find myself nodding in agreement with the points you make, I at the same time find myself cringing at how you make them. It says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." at the bottom of every page, to be sure, but it doesn't say we can't show kindness and mercy to the editor even while mercilessly editing the prose they produced. I like the suggestion made of letting several people each take passes at some revision, in particular I think if Matisse would be willing to give it a go after Frutti takes a cut, the article might be much improved by their concerted efforts. I confess to an ulterior motive, I'm hoping to submit something as a FAC soon, and hope that while my own prose is shown no mercy if deemed necessary, that I myself will be treated kindly and politely. A final note, I think maybe you are indeed going to try to work with other editors kindly going forward. This is not a rebuke... civility blocks and warnings don't work, but it is a plea to see what you can do, it'd be ever so appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- You are right. I did go a little overboard and I'd like to offer my apologies both to user:Dineshkannambadi and to you. I am, however, not trying to disparage DK; rather, I'm trying to encourage people to concentrate on the right things, and not hurriedly "manage" FAs. I can tell you how I would approach the article (without sounding too preachy): I would take it off the FAC mill, nurture the article, carry it in my head, and try to satisfy myself first. Make sure I understand all the terms, make sure that the terms are indeed used that way in modern English, and make the article lucid to myself. When people don't do those things, articles end up having their entrails exposed in the FA review. I got irritated because I said these simple things many times in the first FA review; however, what I got in response to my suggestions were quick fixes, all part of a relentless drive for that FAhood. Good writing can't be managed like some account ledger where the accumulating little green check marks become the hallmark of success. Why this hectic hurry? That's what I don't understand. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Comment - Can somebody tell me why the condescending 'proposal' above shouldnt be removed? Not only is it condescending but it is also peppered with personal attacks and rank incivility. It has nothing to do with this FAC. Sarvagnya 03:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- This is a nice page, that just needs a copyedit for it to sail through FAC but I don't see the point of anyone wasting hours doing it, if the second it is finished it is going to be completely re-written. I'm not being difficult here, I'm sorry for the primary author and would like to help him but I have enough conflict on Wikipedia as it is and more importantly don't want to waste my time. It says quite clearly "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly" and I'm sure in this case everyone can see and understand that I don't want. Basically Fowler has sunk this FAC as is his right. I look forward to seeing his and Matisse's re-write. Giano (talk) 10:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- (Reply to Giano II). No, I have said nowhere that I want to rewrite the article, only that user:Mattisse should (along with yourself, user:Frutti di Mare, and others), in the manner alluded to by user:Lar above. Please read this post of mine. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Abstain let me remind everyone that FA status is basically meaningless and that the FA program is basically just an imaginary carrot to improve articles. While I agree that this is ridiculous, and that this should be otherwise and that this would be better served by Peer Review, I am perfectly willing to let this go - if this article does not obtain FA status it is not a great tragedy, if this article obtains FA status it is not a great tragedy.--Kiyarrllston 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with you. I have changed my "strong oppose" to "Abstain" as well. All the best to user:Dineshkannambadi. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support - The more I look at the article, the more I'm falling in love with it. Kudos to Dinesh for putting this article together. Yes, the prose can do with some improvement, but the merits of the article clearly overwhelm any concerns about the prose. It is a shame that graceless behaviour of a lone editor has seemingly shifted the focus from what a lovely article it is and how much effort has gone into it to what he'd have us believe is the end of the world ("clunky prose"). Sarvagnya 03:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I was asked to have a look and I support this article for promotion to featured status. Good work. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Proposal 2
I have been mulling over this issue in light of Kiyarr's remarks above. What I am about to say might seem surprising, but is meant in all sincerity. Since everyone wants the article to be the best it can be, since user:Mattisse, user:Giano II, and user:Frutti di Mare are interested in rewriting/improving the article, and since the lack of the elusive FA seems to be a stumbling block, why don't we go ahead and give the article that FA status right away? The various editors mentioned above can then begin their work in peace, without anyone breathing down their necks. I have therefore changed my vote to "Strong support." I reiterate again, I have no interest in rewriting the article myself, but will be happy to weigh in, should I be asked. Best wishes, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I think Dwarf Kirlston comments above are very harmful. FA status is not meaningless - it is a sign that we think an article is one of our best. Fowler, if you think there's problems with this article, by all means go ahead and point them out. I think some of your comments have been helpful, and I certainly don't want you to feel off-put or discouraged. Raul654 (talk) 17:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding so eloquently, Random Replicator.
- You might disagree that the FA status is basically meaningless - You might disagree that FA status is similar to the carrot for you to chase - but are these matters of opinion or of fact?
- The hard work, your hard work, is not valued by the worth of FA status.
- Fowler has clearly show[n] that there are issues with the FA process.
- --Kiyarrllston 02:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- It is it a fact, in that it is not meaningless to me. But you are most correct; there is weaknesses in this system.--Random Replicator (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- *Comment: Interesting: I have been working very hard to elevate an article to FA status; in which I have invested a great deal of time and energies. As a "newbie" to Wikipedia, I did find the commentary that "this process is meaningless" to be very demoralizing. I know I have responded to every comment or oppose in a good faith effort to address the concerns on my FA page. As a consequence, I felt with each addition/edit the entry had improved. I guess I saw FA as a both a process leading to improvement and a form of validation that in fact it was note-worthy, not a meaningless "carrot" for me to chase. There is a bit of difference between what is transpiring on my attempt as compared to here. I have gotten "list" of specific concerns which are systematically crossed off by the opposer as they are addressed. Concerns that were not addressed via editing were discussed in efforts to gain more clarity or compromise. Those critics were actively and aggressively engaged in making it better. The exception being a few drive-byes which vote, never to return; which I assume is obvious when the final decision is made. A statement that it is meaningless is destructive in that it devalues the hard work of those here and elsewhere that are contributing, specific, actionable, concerns as well as disheartening to those who attempt to address them. I am sorry it has become so messy here.--Random Replicator (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hereby state that I would not intentionally act harmfully. FA status is not a sign that it is one of our best. It is a sign that it has been approved through the FA process. I have appreciated Fowler's input as well and encourage him to continue as well. However I do not believe that the FA process is very well designed at the moment, as shown by the difficulties Fowler has experienced. Taking things less seriously, less confrontationally, taking a more realistic account of things, these things are not harmful - these are in every way positive. "very harmful"? there were accusations of "personal attacks" inside this very FAC - why didn't you comment regarding those? would those not be more harmful to the FAC process than my own comments? I do not know why you judge my comments as "very harmful", I would very much appreciate learning the reason.--Kiyarrllston 04:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Definitely a well written article, however, I would have ideally like to have seen more information on the impact of WCa on the architectural styles of future Kannada dynasties. I know some mention of this is made in the "Evolution" section, but if additional information is available, I'd like to see that incorporated into the article. Thanks AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong support My request was addressed...I really like the "Appreciation" section...I think it adds color to WCa and gives perspective to their accomplishments. Good job. AreJay (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- DK Reply Thanks for bringing this up. I was going to add this info anyway along with a section requested by Giano. Yes, their influence pervaded right into Hoysala, Kakatiya (from Andhra Pradesh) and even later Vijayanagara style, though the impact is mostly seen in the first two. But because the number of Hoysala monuments of Karnataka outnumber the Kakatiya monuments (in Andhra Pradesh) by a magnitute, most of the scholarly discussions pertain to Chalukya-Hoysala art forms. thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 18:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Support A nice page now with a good conclusion. Its a page for "grown ups" with a good attention span. It is never going to be over easy to follow because of the quantity of similar sounding (to western ears) and unfamiliar names and places. I have studied the page and made a few alterations but it will always be a page one has to read and think about, if one takes the time to do the then one will be a lot wiser. To simplify it would be tantamount to committing a crime so much information would be lost. When he has finished this Dinesh ought to consider writing An introduction to Western Chalukya architecture. He has done a great job here and should be congratulated. Giano (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- To user:Giano_II and user:Dineshkannambadi: I notice that my emblematic example (up top), "This artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." has been changed to "This artificial source of light adds "mystery" to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum." That's an improvement? How are the quotes supposed to help us? Please enlighten. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- DK Reply Will make the change.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Dinesh is the bit about the mystery a referenced in Cousens' book? If so, it might make sense to rephrase the sentence with a direct quote to say something like.."In the opinion of some, this artificial source of light adds mystery to the image of the deity worshipped in the sanctum..". I think this is fair. AreJay (talk) 14:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- What is the actual quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- DK Reply Regarding the "mystery" sentence w.r.t artifical illumination in the inner parts of the shrine, this is what the book says,consequently a small oil lamp was usually burning day and night, to illuminate by its fitful glimmer, the object of worship, which thus gained in mystry, what it lost in visibility. The palpable darkness, pierced only by the reflected light from the inner most prominent portions of the image, was calculated to impress the approaching worshipper with that wholesome awe which was becoming to the occassion, and , to wrapt up in his religious frevour, he could believe he saw the sentinet movement of the deities grim features as the lights rays flickered over them.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, no, that "mystry" in your quote is theological usage, going back to late medieval English and obsolete now. It means "mystical significance" as I remember it. (I don't have OED/Webster's access right this minute, but I'll provide more info later.) Beautiful passage though—the kind of writing (late 19th century?) that no art historian today would be caught dead writing (sadly for art history). Notice too that the author uses "small oil lamp," not "source of artificial light," which in the early 21-century usually refers to electric light. You know guys (and I mean this collegially and not as a personal attack), you've made a hash of the paraphrasing. Why not serve up the entire quote? It is beautifully written. It evokes the ambiance in a way nothing in the entire article does. Maybe leave out the bit about "wrapt up in his religious fervor" (subst. with ...), but keep the rest of the quote in. It is very evocative. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Here it is OED: I. Theological uses. 1. Mystical presence or nature; mystical significance. in (also through) his mystery: in or by its mystical presence or nature. in (a) mystery: mystically, symbolically; with hidden or mystical significance. Obs. Examples: 1542 Plowman's Tale in Wks. G. Chaucer f. cxxvi, Hys fleshe and blode through hys mystrye Is there, in the forme of brede. 1560 J. DAUS tr. J. Sleidane Commentaries f. cxviij, Whiche place..is to be vnderstande in a mistery [L. mystice]. a1616 R. FIELD Of Church (1628) III. App. 205 The crucified body of Christ thy sonne, which is here present in mystery, and sacrament.
-
-
- I wouldn't change the spelling of "mystry" and let the reader figure it out (if they desire) by looking up a dicitionary. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support - The article is in a great shape now with beautiful pictures adding value to the article. Almost all of the concerns raised above were addressed which prompt me to support the article. Gnanapiti (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strongest Support - This article should have been promoted in the first FAC. It, by all means, met all the FA criteria that time around, and has only got much bettered since then. Having copyedited multiple rounds by excellent copyeditors like user:Finetooth, User:Wetman, user:Writtenright, user:Michael Devore, User:Giano II, User:Rodw and user:Frutti di Mare, having so much of information about Western Chalukya architecture supported with plenty of images taken by the main author himself, having referenced with variety of authors and scholars, I must say this article would be one of the finest featured articles ever! I can bet, and User:Giano would support too, that among all those architecture-related FA's, this would stand way above in the list. Congratulations Dineshkannambadi and all other contributors for an excellent job! Thanks, - KNM Talk 02:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ridicuously strong oppose at a closer look, the article actually has ONLY 10 distinct references. this is completely unacceptable for an FA article, especially one of this size.Nergaal (talk) 12:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- DK Reply Your comment is very unclear and vague. Nor sure what you mean by "Ridicuously". Not sure what you mean by "article of this size". Please clarify how many more distinct references you expect. There are more than 10 references, each one from a well known historian.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Umm, how is the fact that there are only 10 "distinct" references "completely unacceptable" for an FA article? How many references are you expecting to see? There's actually 15 distinct references. And anyway, how does an article with, say, 21 references qualify for FA over an article wtih 20 references based solely on the # of references? Please elucidate upon your "ridiculously strong opposition". AreJay (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support - Amply referenced with excellent images. With the multitude of copyedits and the way all the concerns have been addressed by
Dineshkannambadi, I don't see a reason why this cannot be a FA. -- Naveen (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – related to the number of references, but nothing to worry about. Can you please look into using the "name=" parameter to <ref></ref>? For example, in the current version, refs 51 & 52 are identical, as are 54 & 55, 40, 71 and 76. There are more, no doubt. Thanks. Carre (talk) 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- DK Reply Sure I will look into it. Sometimes, the same reference holds good for multiple statements cited from the same page in the source material. So there may be nothing wrong as such. So I have to club citations, thats all. will do.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Done Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Strong Support - A well referenced, interesting article. The type of English it is written in is irrelevant, as long as it has some semblance of proper grammar, which this article does.Bakaman 18:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong comment - I find it amusing how opinions on this FAC are either "strong support" or "strong oppose", and nothing in between. Only on Wikipedia would the subject of "Western Chalukya architecture" divide public opinion so severely. indopug (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great article, reads easily for a somewhat technical subject. Congratulations, ~ priyanath talk 04:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] William Gibson
Following a successful good article nomination, a fruitful peer review, and encouragement from experienced featured article commentators, I am nominating this article for featured article status. I feel it is thoroughly referenced, strikingly illustrated and exhaustive of its subject, thereby representing the encyclopedia's finest work. Skomorokh incite 14:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Congratulations to the editors for patiently assembling a very fine biography that incorporates contributions from far and wide. In my opinion as someone who added a few minor edits, the article traverses the minefield of what some call cyberspace—with both respect for the subject and his fans, and with the criticism (an understatement from some points of view) that their work attracts. Well done. -Susanlesch (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Well done overall, well-written, comprehensive, well-sourced, good use of free-use images. The only thing I'd say is that for a newcomer to the article, the Lead/Intro is a bit long, no need to go into that much detail. The lede could do without the two quotes in the fourth paragraph, and without the amount of detail in the second paragraph. But these are not sticking points, overall very well done. Cirt (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC).
- Thank you for your kind comments; I'm going to leave the lede for now as it has been historically troublesome to get right and it isn't a sticking point for you, but if another reviewer objects I'll try and reform it somewhat. Regards, Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support
per the fixing of small stuffAll my issues with this article are MOS stuff (and pointing this out is the subject of a current FAC controversy) but otherwise it is an extremely well-written, well-organized, biography of Gibson.
-
- I think according to MOS your opening sentence William Ford Gibson, born March 17, 1948 (1948-03-17) (age 59), in Conway, South Carolina is an American-Canadian[15] writer should actually be:William Ford Gibson (born March 17, 1948) is an American-Canadian writer... Let the Infobox take care of the rest, current age/ place of birth.
- In terms of recognition, The Literary Encyclopedia identifies Gibson as "one of North America's most highly acclaimed science fiction writers." for incomplete sentences punctuation should be outside the quotes, See WP:PUNC.
- Feted by The Guardian in 1999 as "probably the most important novelist of the past two decades," his thought has been cited as an influence on science fiction authors, in academia, cyberculture, and technology. same here with the punctuation.
- He appeared, during the Summer of Love of 1967, in a CBC newsreel item about hippie subculture in Yorkville, Toronto,[26][27] for which he was paid $500 - the equivalent of 20 weeks rent—which financed his later travels. i believe an em-dash or an en-dash is needed here.. see WP:DASH.
- Tom Maddox has commented that Gibson "grew up in an America as disturbing and surreal as anything J. G. Ballard ever dreamed."[23] same here with the punctuation.
- Gibson met Sterling at a science fiction convention in Denver, Colorado in the Autumn of 1981, where he read "Burning Chrome"—the first cyberspace short story—to an audience of four people, and later stated that Sterling "completely got it." same here with the punctuation
- In October 1982 Gibson traveled to Austin, Texas for ArmadilloCon, at which he appeared with Shirley, Sterling and Shiner on a panel called "Behind the Mirrorshades: A Look at Punk SF", where Shiner noted "the sense of a movement solidified." same here with the punctuation.
- Lawrence Person, writing in his "Notes Toward a Postcyberpunk Manifesto" (1998) identified the novel as "the archetypal cyberpunk work,"[42] and in 2005, Time magazine included... same here where the comma should be outside of the quotes.
- by The Literary Encyclopedia You should use the author's name, so John Doe in The Literary Encyclopedia, because I believe those encyclopedic entries are authored. MOS also states that this should be done, specifying the author of the quotation for a publication. But with the Literary Encyclopedia it would actually be nice to know.
- I have left the author's name out of the lede out of a desire to keep that short; he was already explicitly mentioned in the text twice and now twice further. Is attribution in the references sufficient for the quote in the lede or does that definitely need attributing in the body? I feel it's almost undue weight to mention the author so much. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- You mention Rapatzikou three times now in the text and that's fine. So it's now obvious that Rapatzikou is a scholar of Gibson as well as the author of the Literary Encyclopedia article.
- You may want to rename Works of William Gibson to List of works by William Gibson and then send it to WP:FLC when finished. (See List of works by Joseph Priestley and List of works by William Monahan for examples)
- See the split discussion; the article is not ultimately intended as a list, and is consistent with genre naming conventions. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I see. That's fine.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
So thanks for writing this. I've already put Neuromancer on my to read list.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your diligent response, and for editing the article yourself. I haven't touched the WP:DASH business as it seems other editors have strong feelings on the matters, but I've tried to address most of your other concerns. Skomorokh incite 13:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't myself know WP:DASH yet and just point it out really.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I went through the article and fact-checked most of it. I have only read one of his books (guess which one) but I found that a lot has been written about him. Although long, this article is easy to read and does a good job profiling his professional life. Reference 69's ("Speeches by WG and BS at the National Academy of Sciences") link is dead. maclean 04:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
So...excuse my ignorance, but what exactly happens now that the concerns have been addressed? Does the article pass immediately by default, only after a certain period of time, only if no-one else opposes within a certain length of time, or when the director says so? If there's anything else I can do to improve the article, please let me know. Skomorokh incite 23:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- The FA director periodically goes through everything on FAC and promotes some, archives others, and leaves the rest for more comments. Articles may be left for more comments if the director feels consensus has not been reached, or because not enough people have commented, or the article has only been on FAC a short time, or because there are unaddressed significant objections and the nominator is in the process of fixing them. I believe Raul is planning a round of promotions and archiving tomorrow evening (he often does them on Sunday evenings). Mike Christie (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Meant to lend my support earlier. I peer-reviewed awhile ago and I was impressed with how well done the article was then. It's only improved since. Great work, Skomorokh! --JayHenry (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Stretford
I'm nominating this article for featured article because ... I believe that that it meets all of the FA criteria and it is the most comprehensive encyclopedia article about this town to be found anywhere. Stretford was an agricultural village that during the 19th-century industrial revolution grew to become the home of the world's first and largest industrial park, still one of the largest industrial estates in Europe today. Dirty, grimy industrial places don't always get a fair shout, so I've tried to do justice to the place. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. The article has been steadily improving since it became a GA in July 2007 and has undergone significant change within the past month, widening the scope of the article and improving its quality. I think it fulfils the criteria. Nev1 (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support like the use of word materiel, don't like the fact that it states the current make up of the government - perhaps could be served better by a section "recent politics" or "recent events" - but this is a systemwide issue for city articles, Queries: should the article really have an external link linking to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000? I note that culture and sports are under different headings, and Demographics and Religion are also not within the same heading, it's different than in the Russia article currently FAC - could you comment on this? In addition, I feel that it could use improvements in term of the writing style. - example: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, but there is very little in the way of a night-time economy" - better would be "[While] Stretford town centre is busy during the day,
butthere is very little in the way of a night-time economy" or, more concise and to the point: "Stretford town centre is busy during the day, butthere is very little in the way of a night-time economy". - The first sentence should actually summarize the topic. Thanks for reading this comment, I am very amenable to expound on anything I have said in this comment, and discuss anything at all, feel free to contact me.--Kiyarrllston 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- The reason religion and demography are not under a single section - and why sports and culture are also different secitions - is to comply with WP:UKCITIES, a guideline drawn up by members of WikiProject UK geography to aid writing about settlements in the UK. They are guidelines rather than inflexible rules and it would be easy to integrate the sports section under culture. I don't think there's any need to merge demography and religion as both are fairly well developed and have little overlap as they now stand. Nev1 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I've made a slight copyedit to the Economysection along the lines you suggested. As for the link to http://www.rhaworth.myby.co.uk/oscoor_a.htm?SJ82819491_region:GB_scale:25000, I don't know the history, but every UK city article sems to have the same link to that set of mapping tools. Even though I'd agree that there isn't presently an awful to say about Stretford's culture I'd prefer to keep it separate from the Sport section if possible. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support
CommentsThis article is looking good but a few questions/comments before I can support:
-
- Is there a reason why Hamon de Massey is not wikilinked?
- Done. Just an oversight, no reason why the link wasn't there before. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Can the de Trafford inheritance be linked to Thomas de Trafford?
-
- It seems that Thomas de Trafford probably owned Trafford Park in 1847, but Stretford was just an agricultural village then, and had seen many de Traffords come and go over the centuries. Certainly I've come across no evidence that Sir Thomas had any significant impact on Stretford anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The Manchester Ship Canal is mentioned in both general history & also in transport history - is there a particular reason?
- Done. On reflection, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the transport history section, so I've removed it. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Did Stretford Local Board of Health really assume responsibility for all "local government of the area" as is implied?
-
- That's what the source says. I quote: "Local Government had previously been under the jurisdiction of the parish vestry ... as urban growth took a hold they quickly became outmoded and were replaced. Stretford Local Board was created in 1867 and took over the role of governing the following year." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I found the sentence "The Trafford Metropolitan Borough local government area called Stretford is divided into the wards of Clifford, Longford, Gorse Hill, and Stretford." a little confusing because of 2 occurrences of Stretford.
- Done. I've tried to elaborate on that. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should the units square miles & km² be wikilinked in the geography section?
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- If the earthwork Nico Ditch was an administrative boundary should it be in geography or governance (or even history)?
-
- Nico Ditch is only probably an administrative boundary, it's not certain, so I don't think it should go into the governance section. It could however go into either the history or geography section as there is some overlap in this case. Nev1 (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- 2 paragraphs in demography are not cited. I presume ref 46 applies but this might need to be made explicit.
- Done. Citations added. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- In the economy section we read about Stretford Metrolink tram station but the transport history section makes no mention of the modern tram system, although I see there is a later transport section
- Done. I've added a bit explaining that the pre-existing railway line was converted to the Metrolink in 1992. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Manchester Airport's claim to being the largest airport outside London might need a citation?
- Done. I changed the claim from largest to busiest, and added a citation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- In education "higher proportion than average of pupils" is unclear - is this the average for Manchester, England or what?
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Could the one or two sentence paragraphs in culture be combined in some way?
-
- I've done what I can with the culture section. Any more suggestions gratefully received. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- The books cited in the references should have the year of publication & publisher + ISBN if possible.
I think most of these can be fairly easily dealt with and then I will be able to support.— Rod talk 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- All seem to have been appropriately dealt with so now changed to support.— Rod talk 17:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - per Nev1. Appears to comply with FAC critera, good job. Rudget. 19:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment
- "being the target for some heavy bombing" - "some" is redundant
-
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Pdf sources need labelling
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "The most southerly part of Stretford lies within the flood plain of the River Mersey, and has historically been prone to flooding" - aren't all areas in flood plains historically prone to flooding?
-
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "filled with disinfectant to disinfect any coins" - repetition
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "formally unveiled in 1923, by the Earl of Derby" - does he have an article to link to?
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Stretford Grammar School, is located within the area" - within→in
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "the late 19th and the early part of the 20th century" - "early part of" is redundant
-
- Done. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's an overuse of "with" as an additive link
-
-
- I removed one instance where I thought its use was dubious. Are there any others you object to? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Can't the Culture and cultural references section just be called Culture?
-
-
- It could, but that would leave the Invention and discovery subsection dangling. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- "Currently all 12 of the councillors" - this may become outdated
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Many instances of "located" are redundant
-
- Done. All but two removed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Very substantial improvement has taken place since then" - is the "very" necessary?
-
- Done. No, it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Captions shouldn't have fullstops if not complete sentences.
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The article doesn't have one. Is it's current position acceptable/inline with MOS? -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I know it will look odd, but under the current guidelines a see also section would have to be made just for the portal link. Epbr123 (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Is this part of MOS or other guidelines? It would look odd indeed and I'd rather be sure. Failing that the portal is linked in the county navigation template. -- Jza84 · (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Wikipedia:Layout#See also states, "See also" is the most appropriate place to link a Portal Epbr123 (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Link to portal removed. Not really needed anyway, as it's already in the county navigation template immediately below. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Very little it seems. I've added a paragraph to the History section explaining. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Support, but it would be nice to see the opinion of a non WP:UKGeography member before the article is promoted. Epbr123 (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, comprehensively referenced article with a broad scope. Regan123 (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Ununoctium
I have worked for some time to this article and spent a lot of time finding everything is known in the research literature about this element. The article is a GA, and I believe it is well written, well formatted, well referenced, and broad enough for the FA criterias. The article has also passed through a peer review recently. Any comments, thoughts, suggestions would be welcome. Thanks. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the article contains some speculation presented as fact. For example:
-
-
- Done
"Ununoctium, like all noble gases except helium, has a "full" (eight electron) valence (outermost) electron shell (also called closed shell), thus making it a highly unreactive element". If there have only been 3 atoms ever synthesised, and the t½ < 1 ms, how could it be known to be highly unreactive. Expected, yes, but not known. - Done
Sentence about bond length, compared with radon dimer, can be read as saying an actual sample of Uuo2 has been studied, whereas results are from theoretical investigations.
- Also, the compounds and use section needs correction of grammar and expression:
- Done
"No compounds of ununoctium have been synthesized yet, and if the ionization energy will be high enough, ..." - maybe "is found to be high enough"? - Done
"For the fluorinated compounds UuoF2 and UuoF4 an increase in stability of the +2 and +4 oxidation states it was calculated, which is ..." - maybe "has been calculated", or maybe even 'predicted', as neither compound has actually been made. - Done
"Unlike the other noble gases, ununoctium was predicted to electronegative enough to form a bond with chlorine (Uuo-Cl)" - maybe "is predicted to be sufficiently electronegative to"
- Other concerning parts:
- Done
The statement "Moreover, it has been calculated that ununoctium exhibits electron affinity." seems strange to me. Electron affinity is the energy change for the one-electron oxidation of the 1- anion of an element - so every element has an electron affinity. Is this saying it is expected to have a positive EA, or a negative EA, or ...?
-
- negative electron affinity would be the same thing as saying that it does not have/exhibit electron affinity (but it repulses it). so from a scientific point of view, having "positive electron affinity" is slightly redundant. nevertheless, I agree that it is more clear with the psoitive adjective in frontNergaal (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done
The statement "Ununoctium is a noble gas because all its electrons are in a closed shell." is also problematic - it is expected to be condensed at RT, and not liquid. Maybe "belongs to group 18 as all ... shell" and then a comment about the group often being referred to as the noble gases, but recognising this may change if a non-gaseous element is added. I'm also uncomfortable with all electrons in a "closed shell" - just because it has 7s27p6, for example, doesn't mean that there is no 7d sub-shell, and thus that shell 7 is closed.EdChem (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- the closed shell and valence electron artcles should explain why ns2np6 is actually a closed shell. also by your way of thinking, 7s27p67d10 would also not be a what would be commonly thought as a 'closed shell' - since it would not include the f, g, h and i orbitals that come with the 7th shell.Nergaal (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Almostsupport. The article is much improved since I reviewed it for GA, and I'm happy to see that the predicted properties now refer to the scientific literature rather than to websites that don't say where they got their data.-
- Done
My only concern is that the wording could be improved in some places, such as in the properties section (I took the liberty to try to improve the first paragraph a bit, I hope it helped). I noticed some superlatives and expressions that don't sound appropriate to an encyclopedic article, such as "enormous" and "it is difficult to argue". I then noticed that these are the same expressions used by the source (J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 3493). I suggest either rewording to a more sober tone, or attributing the wording explicitly to the author of the paper that is referenced. I prefer the former.
-
-
-
- Done
I would also remove the "reputedly" from the lead; if the new discovery is ever retracted or a heavier element is recognized, we can amend the article, but I see no need to use such a "defensive" language.
-
-
-
- Done
The discovery section says that there was a single detected event of the synthesis of an atom of this element, yet later it says that the decay of three atoms was detected. On first reading this sounds confusing, I don't know if it could be made clearer in some way. I'm assuming it means that at least two more atoms were made but only detected after they decayed?
-
- Support
Oppose for now.-
- Done
The lead doesn't summarize the article. There is nothing about compounds or decay, for example. - Rewrote the intro. Is it ok now? Nergaal (talk) 08:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done
Multiple first use of units are unlinked. E.g. "g·mol−1" and "cm−3". There is also some overlinking of units, such as "K", "kJ·mol−1" and "kJ/mol" (one form should be used).- Solved the consistency problem, but the overlinking is due to the use of {{Elementbox}} (I am not sure if changing this would be a good idea since it would affect half of all the elements).Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The Phase entry in the infobox has some extraneous square brackets at the end.- Done
The discussion of the element's "half-life" and "decay" should first clearly explain that this element is radiactive and perhaps add a little about why this is so. I don't think the image caption is sufficient. - Done
This jargon needs to be explained: "closed valence shell", "p-block element", "energetic destabilization and radial expansion of its occupied 7p3/2 spinor shell", "positive electron affinity", "quantum electrodynamical", "+2 and +4 oxidation states", many parts of the third paragraph in the "Compounds and uses" section, &c. - Done
The non-existant category needs to be established or removed.
-
- Support Excellent article with great citations and an astonishing amount of information considering how little is known about this element. Not to mention the fact that only 3 atoms of it have ever been created. Also, I modified the picture to reflect the fact that the only currently synthesized isotope has 176 neutrons. (see comment on the image's commons page .) Thingg⊕⊗ 19:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I agree with Thingg's comment that there is a lot of information about Ununoctium given that it's pretty rare and recently discovered. Let's go for it. MP (talk•contribs) 19:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great article. —dima/talk/ 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Vampire
Hi everyone! I bring you with great joy the former featured article (Old nom - here) vampire, which I've been working on with Casliber since September (The first article in our series of upcoming collaborations). Here's what we had to work with ([55]) and over 1000 edits, a RFC, a few months and nearly 200 citations later, we're finally here! :) I'll let the article do the talking, but I definitely think that this article is FA worthy: It's basically 100% cited, comprehensive, well-written, well illustrated, complies with MOS and is very interesting. If you're worried about size (Which could be the only issue here) let me assure you we pondered this issue for a long time. We split off as much as we could to some of the already existing sub-articles, but we weren't fond of the idea of splitting our hard FA-level work off into a "dump" article where anybody could put any trivial piece of information they wanted - hardly worth the effort and I'm sure you wouldn't want to do that either. So enough of my talking, please go ahead and read the article. We put months into it and I hope you enjoy it enough to support it at this FAC. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 01:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - As nominator! :) Spawn Man Review Me! 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as contributor of over 500 edits. It has had a look over by several folk experienced in copyediting, and is fully sourced with published book refs. All images were published over 75 years ago (and hence copyright expired). There is a well-organized hierarchy of headings/subheadings. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't checked the text yet, but there is a problem with Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif. The tag on the image says it is a Fair Use image. The article on Une Semaine de Bonté says the image comes from a Victorian-era book. It seems that this image is copyright-expired (since it's from long before 1932), but the tag needs to be changed to conform to this, or a Fair Use rationale needs to be provided for this illustration. There are other illustrations on this page which aren't in the public domain, but they all have correct licensing. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Nice catch Firs, I hadn't noticed that. The article's copyright has obviously expired, so I should just replace the current image tags with a free use license riight? Oh, and which other images aren't in the public domain - I thought we had all free use ones? And if we don't, should we just replace them with free use images instead? (I'm not extremely well-versed in detailed licensing sorry) *Gulp* :) Spawn Man (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- All of the other image tags look fine: they've got proper licenses and tags. It seems like a no-brainer that Image:Ernst6-thumb.gif is in the public domain (since it's an image from the Victorian era), so I think you should replace it with a public domain tag. If you don't want to do that, your other option is to provide a Fair Use rationale for the image. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks a bunch Firs! :) I swear I pasted that tag and it just wasn't it! Spawn Man (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. :) You were using {{PD-old}} instead of {{PD-US}}. I don't think you'll have any objections over this image, but I'm willing to investigate if you do. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Support impressive work. igordebraga ≠ 13:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- This was great fun to read! Bravo to all involved. I have some questions, observations, starting with Etymology:
- The Slavic word might, like its possible cognate that means "bat" (Czech netopýr, Slovak netopier, Polish nietoperz, Russian нетопырь / netopyr' - a species of bat), contain a Proto-Indo-European root for "to fly". I had to read this sentence twice to understand what it was saying.
- "The first recorded use of the Old Russian form Упирь (Upir') is commonly believed to be in a document dated 6555 (1047 AD)." In which calendar is 6555 the same as 1047 AD?
- Moravian vampires only attacked victims while naked Naked vampires or naked victims?
- In Decription
- This tradition persisted in regard to modern Greek folklore... I'm not sure what "in regard to" means here. Does it just mean "in Greek folklore"?
- In similar Chinese narratives... this is a theme encountered Is the "theme" in this case, the need to count every grain? Perhaps "motif" is a better fit?
- I infer from the link to Mara (folklore) that and pressing on people in their sleep. means "causing nightmares". I would have expected this to mean something more akin to Incubus (demon). Maybe just add "causing nightmares" at the end of the sentence? The Mara article doesn't have the explanation in the lead, and some readers won't think to click on "Pressing".
- I thought mara was more closely connected to Night terrors where the victim would experience both pressing and nightmares at the same time. Cas is more referenced in the psychological side of vampires, so hopefully he'll be able to answer that genre of questions here. - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Apotropaics, that is, mundane or sacred items able to ward off revenants, such as garlic,[39] or holy water... As worded, this could be saying that garlic and holy water are revenants. Perhaps dashes or parentheses to make the appositive clearer?
- The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; in Europe... I think given the structure that it's a bit confusing not to mention the region of the wild rose and hawthorn belief.
- slavic is sometimes l.c. Is this correct?
- Not sure what you mean - could you give an example? - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- In Vampire#Protection for example it says "commonly cited method, particularly in southern slavic cultures." I thought Slavic was always capitalized. I noticed it somewhere else too. --JayHenry (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure what you mean - could you give an example? - Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ancient Babylonia had tales of the mythical , such as the Lilitu,[60] synonymous with Lilith and her daughters the Lilu from Hebrew demonology who were derived from their Babylonian counterparts. Is something missing here?
- Graves were often opened five or seven years after burial to check for vampirism, before being washed and reburied. It's corpses that were washed, not graves, right? Maybe "corpses were often exhumed"?
- It appears to me that vampire antecedents in India are discussed twice. Both in Vampire#India and Vampire#Asia.
- Is a non-bylined "Ananova" story a reliable enough source for the rather remarkable claim that vampire hunters raided the tomb of Milosevic?
- I did a search and may have come up with more credible sources (search results), but I'm not familiar with any of them, so maybe someone can suggest one and I'll replace the Ananova citation with a new one. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 02:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- The innate sexuality of bloodsucking can be seen in its intrinsic connection with cannibalism and folkloric one with incubus-like behaviour. Is something missing from this sentence?
- Although the vampire bat's bit is usually not harmful to a person It's bit? You mean it's ecological niche?
- initial flying shapeshifted form was originally described is confusing to me.
- I had the impression that vampires were immortal. Is that just an Anne Rice-ism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JayHenry (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Geesh! Are you saying we forgot to put that vampire are immortal in there? I swear I did - will check article and try and include. *Sheepishly shuffles feet* Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. I love your edit summary "...some responses to the spawn". :) Spawn Man (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Object. Is this article about hematophagy or vampires? Just because a certain mythological being was said to drink blood does not make it relevant to an article about vampires. For example, I fail to see what the Ancient Egyptian goddess Sekhmet has to do with vampires, besides the fact that she drank blood (which is certainly not exclusive to vampires). Unless you have a good source explicitly connecting Sekhmet to vampire legends, I would suggest reducing the section about Sekhmet from 2 paragraphs to 1 sentence explaining that Sekhmet is an example of an ancient mythological being that drank blood and thus maybe, possibly, (though quite unlikely) could have been a precursor to later vampire legends. In fact, the entire section on Ancient beliefs should probably be reduced to one or two paragraphs, as the relevance of these ancient myths to later vampire legends is speculative at best (and not especially interesting). Kaldari (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the comments. Yes, now that you mention it, the Sekmhet legend does seem a bit un-needed in the long run - I'll put it into the main Sekmhet article and remove it altogether from this article. However, I am not thankful for comments such as "...speculative at best (and not especially interesting)...". I, and many others, have spent many many hours working on this article since September and saying something as cruel as that is not very nice. Comment but do not critisize please. I think we can all take constructive critisism, but that's just being mean. We've put long hours into this article and it is very unthoughtful for you to come and say that. Now, I agree the Sekmhet paragraph can go (And probably some parts of india), but I'm afraid that vampire mythology did indeed begin with demons and the like in ancient greece, mesopotamia and the like and I'm not prepared to compromise that because it would be effectively cutting out half of the vampire's history. It is not reasonable to cut the whole thing down to just two paragraphs when there's so much actually relevant material there. Have you actually read the article? I'll try and fix what I can, but I would like if you could see that side of the coin too. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Objectbecause of size. Notwithstanding your assurances to the contrary, I find excessive size to be a major problem for many FACs/FAs. Readers who are looking for a general introduction to vampires (which is the point of an encyclopedia article on vampires) will be overwhelmed by this >10,000-word article. Using Dr pda's prose size tool, the prose here is twice the recommended maximum of 32k. It is not as though vampires are so important or complicated compared to other encyclopedia articles that they need this much space. WP:SS would be a great benefit to this article. And a sidenote: subarticles are not just "dumps" - they are useful to highlight what information is the most important in the main article, and also have the potential to become featured topics if well-developed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)- I agree, but vampires are pretty complex. I didn't realise their history went back so far when we began and to bring a fully complete article, not just "Vampires suck blood and can't go in sunlight" (Which is not the case in many cultures), it is necessary to write all of that down. As I said above, I'll try and see what we can cut down. I'll get back to you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Updating - the folklore section went in by far the greatest detail and total page size is down to 83 kb. This computer I am typing on does not have anything by which I can estimate word count - if someone could keep us updated it'd be very helpful. CJ you're right about subarticles as I reckon with some rearranging the vampire folklore could be a goer soon too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Uneducated support. I haven't gone through the article thoroughly by any means, but my length concerns have been resolved and from my brief overview it looks good. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Updating - the folklore section went in by far the greatest detail and total page size is down to 83 kb. This computer I am typing on does not have anything by which I can estimate word count - if someone could keep us updated it'd be very helpful. CJ you're right about subarticles as I reckon with some rearranging the vampire folklore could be a goer soon too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, but vampires are pretty complex. I didn't realise their history went back so far when we began and to bring a fully complete article, not just "Vampires suck blood and can't go in sunlight" (Which is not the case in many cultures), it is necessary to write all of that down. As I said above, I'll try and see what we can cut down. I'll get back to you. :) Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Due to us trying to fix the article for the opposers above, it's in a bit of a bad shape at the moment, so please refrain from making any judgements - good or bad - until this period of unstability is over. Regards, Spawn Man (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Re: query at WT:FAC. Article is presently 7675 words or 46k of readable prose, which is within the 10000 word and 50k guideline from WP:SIZE. Gimmetrow 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I agree with Gimmetrow; the article's size is in compliance with WP:SIZE. Mike Christie (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Regarding the size issue; I propose the most important points from Mesopotamia & Ancient Greece section to be incorporated as a second paragraph to the Ancient beliefs section with the removed content transfered to Vampire folklore. The same regarding the Non-European beliefs section; summarized in 2-3 paragraphs. I know cutting down is hard but with all the information going to a different article it should be easier on you guys. I also oppose the name Vampire folklore and highly recommend it renamed to Vampire folklore by region. "Vampire folklore" is essentially 80% of what this article discusses so having a second article named that blurs the difference between the 2 articles. If Vampire folklore was to remain named that way I would expect to see sections 2.1 and Etymology in there as well because to me that information is part of Vampire folklore as well. I feel if organized correctly Vampire folklore would be a second FA regarding this topic for you guys. Thanks. 76.10.141.221 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
:::Thanks for that, I was thinking along those lines too. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Update - the page size is now 73kb. The Ancient Beliefs Section has been summarised, and theoretical origins trimmed a bit and more esoteric material removed. The beings listed in World Beliefs are listed in vampire encyclopedias etc. so are more central to the article than the anceint beliefs and I think keeping them is good in keeping a world-view on the subject - I didn't want it to become too listy either. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note also that the readable prose is only 43k (excluding all cite templates, images, etc). That is not excessive. Karanacs (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support: It might be a bit wordy, but most things on Wikipedia are a bit wordy. But I support wholeheartedly because I was reading through the article and thought "this should be a featured article," I went to the discussion page, and voila! Good job, those who've contributed. Lawofone (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Current word count, without references and images, according to microsoft word 2007: 6,893 words spread out over 72 paragraphs and 545 lines --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- support an excellent well-written article. I liked it slightly better before it got just cut down but its still very FA worthy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great article that has obviously seen a lot of attention from SpawnMan and Casliber, among others. Well-written, good use of images, and comprehensive almost to a fault, it is most definately among Wikipedia's finest work. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Overall this is an excellent article. I think some of the prose could be tightened—it is overly verbose in some areas. I did a little copyediting and I saw that User:Awadawit is in the process of doing a little more. You might read over it one more time with an eye for tightening the individual sentences. Once sentence gave me pause: The items vary from region to region; a branch of wild rose and hawthorn plant are said to harm vampires; when I read this I wanted to know which region wil rose and hawthorn were said to harm vampires. Some of the content in the Ancient Beliefs section also made me wonder whether it was really necessary. I'd almost rather a See Also section with links to some of those beings that aren't really vampires than have a whole section about them, but as I'm not that familiar with the topic that could be a really dumb thing to do. Karanacs (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Leaning towards support This article has improved markedly since I last read it. I think that the cuts, while painful for the editors, are to the benefit of the article. It is now much easier to read all of the way through the article without stopping. We want readers to receive a thorough education - we don't just want them to skip to the end or stop in the middle!
- I agree with Karanacs that one more go around with a copy editor to reduce wordiness would benefit the article enormously. I did just a little. I would suggest asking someone who has not worked on the article - who has spent hours staring at these sentences. :)
- The Oxford English Dictionary dates the first appearance of word vampire in English from 1734, in a travelogue entitled Travels of Three English Gentlemen which was published in the Harleian Miscellany in 1745.[3][4] Many mentions of the subject had been made in German literature. - There needs to be a transition between these two sentences.
- Several theories of the word's origin exist. - This sentence is sitting in the middle of the paragraph - it seems oddly placed. It is also not entirely clear whether it refers to the English word vampire or the word in all languages.
- (Note that many of these languages have also borrowed forms such as "vampir/wampir" subsequently from the West). - So how much less likely does this make the theory put forward that English derived its term from German which derived its from these languages, etc.?
- This apparently strange name has been cited as an example of surviving paganism and/or of the use of nicknames as personal names. - Is it "and" or "or"?
- However, in 1982, Swedish Slavicist Anders Sjöberg suggested that "Upir' likhyi" was in fact an Old Russian transcription and/or translation of the name of Öpir Ofeigr - Is it "and" or "or"?
- In most cases, vampires are revenants of evil beings, suicide victims, or witches, but they can also be created by a malevolent spirit possessing a corpse or by being bitten by a vampire itself. - This sentence just bugs me. I kept trying to find a way to word it better, but I couldn't. There must be one. All of the "be's" and "by's" are just no good.
- I wonder if something more interesting could be done with the captions, per WP:CAPTIONS. I have become a fan of interesting captions. (It is one place to put interesting details that had to be removed from the text.)
- As stories of vampires spread throughout the globe to the Americas and elsewhere, so did the varied and sometimes bizarre descriptions of them: Mexican vampires had a bare skull instead of a head,[26] Brazilian vampires had furry feet and vampires from the Rocky Mountains only sucked blood with their noses and from the victim's ears. - As the editors of this page are aware, I am against labeling one kind of vampire any more bizarre than another, particularly when that leads to a European/New World distinction. I think it has the appearance of POV. I will obviously not make this a condition of supporting the page, but I would encourage them to reconsider this wording.
- From these various legends, works of literature such as Bram Stoker's Dracula, and the influences of historical figures such as Gilles de Rais, Elizabeth Bathory, and Vlad Ţepeş, the vampire developed into the modern stereotype. - This is just the tiniest bit unclear - at this point in the article, the reader does not know who these historical figures are or what their influences might have been. That needs to be made clearer.
- During the 18th century, there was a frenzy of vampire sightings in Eastern Europe, with frequent stakings and grave diggings to identify and kill the potential revenants; even government officials were compelled into the hunting and staking of vampires. - Are we sure they were "compelled"? It is possible the government officials could have been the ringleaders. :) Instill fear in the populace and all of that.
- I am not sure what the purpose of the Voltaire quote is. I don't think it adds much to the article, unfortunately.
- I see we have switched from "World beliefs" to "Non-European beliefs" as a heading. I'm afraid that I don't think this is an improvement. As the "Asia" section is just as long as the Europe section, I'm not sure why we are setting up this polarization of West and non-West. What about establishing a section of "Vampire beliefs" and puting "Ancient", "Europe", "Africa", "The Americas", "Asia", and "Modern" under it, making less of a Western/non-Western distinction?
The editors have done phenomenal work on this article and I look forward to supporting it very soon. :} Awadewit | talk 23:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – It would be nice to see the image at right or something like this in the article. When I hear "vampire", that is what I think of. –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 01:51, 21 January 2008.
[edit] Andean Condor
Self nomination I'm nominating this article for featured article because: it's another New World Vulture article, which is comparable in quality to the other New World Vulture FAs (California Condor, Turkey Vulture and American Black Vulture). heyjude. 00:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as a minor contributor. All my concerns were raised before the FAC and answered. The article is comprehensive, well-cited, easy to read, and decorated with a number of good images. Good job, Jude. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support now.
Comment. Relationship with humans is badly organised, jumping between cultural importance, then to status and conservation, before jumping back to cultural representations. Perhaps it would be best to reorganise and perhaps split into two subsections, importance in culture and status and conservation? Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)- Thanks for pointing that out. I've split it into two subsections, as you suggested. heyjude. 12:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- A read through found a few additional problems (some I fixed myself)
- It's status as near threatened is cited three times, once in the taxobox, once in the intro, and once in the status section. Surely once is enough. Done
- The generic term Vultur is directly taken from the Latin vultur or voltur, which means "vulture" and is a word originally used in the works of Livy and Virgil. Does it particularly matter when the word was first used and by whom? Surely it is sufficient to state that it was Latin. Done
- the Andean Condor is undoubtedly larger in wingspan undoubtedly can probably go. Done
- The birds flap their wings on rising from the ground, but after attaining a moderate elevation they seem to sail on the air. Seem to sail on the air? Better to describe what they actually do than what they seem to do, surely? Done
- The Andean Condor is a scavenger, feeding mainly on carrion. Since no mention is made of any other food other than carrion, is the mainly needed?
- They also raid other birds' nests to eat the eggs. heyjude. 01:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- It was first placed on the Endangered Species list in 1973.[41] Is that the United States Endangered Species List? If so it should say so. It might be helpful to explain how the listing varies from IUCN listing, and whether it really matters. Done
- The condors are kept in aviaries for three months prior to release to allow them to acclimatize. Acclimatize to what exactly? The sentences in this section are kind of choppy and could benefit from a little more context. What exactly does sattelite tracking achieve, for example? Also, is any education being done to improve public perception/behaviour? Done
- This article is close, I look forward to supporting it soon. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. I've split it into two subsections, as you suggested. heyjude. 12:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support as a minor contributor. I tweaked a bit prior to coming here. looks good.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Well-written and informative, as were the other vulture articles. Coemgenus 16:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. A fine article, but in need of polishing for style. I have edited a dash and some Greek etymology myself. Among the work that needs to be done:
-
- ...which ranges from 274-310 cm (9-10 ft). According to WP:MOS: such hyphens should be changed to en dashes (throughout the article, including in all bibliographic details); then these particular dashes should be replaced with to, for grammar; and a hard space ( ) should be inserted between the number and the unit; this should also be done throughout the article, including all cases like this: "pp. 23–37" (pp. 23–37).
- The beak is hooked, and designed to tear rotting meat. Designed? I don't think so! Try this: The beak is hooked, and adapted for tearing rotting meat. There are several infelicities like that. For example, I am also not happy about this: has the unusual habit of urohidrosis, in which it urinates or defecates on its legs... . We know that birds don't urinate, strictly speaking. Try this this instead: has the unusual habit of urohidrosis: its cloaca empties onto its legs... . Still an ugly image, but at least accurate now! More of this tidying needs to be done. Get an additional skilled copyeditor in to run through the article with a new broom.
- Generally, the citations need to be tidied. Apart from what I raise above, there are all sorts of inconsistencies. In formatting of dates, for example. Again, have someone who knows how to fix such things efficiently go through it with a fine-tooth comb.
- When all this is fixed, the article will be ready for promotion, I think. I'd help if I could, but I have no time: except to answer specific questions of style at my talkpage, if you'd like that.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support I'll probably make some minor changes to the prose, but nothing major here. I also wish we could find a decent image (without bars and closeup) that shows the whole bird, which would be good for the taxobox. But there doesn't seem to be any better alternatives available, either in Commons or Flickr. Good work, and good luck! VanTucky 01:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Altrincham
I'm self-nominating this article for featured article because it conforms with WP:UKCITIES and I think it is a well developed article with plenty of references and meets the criteria of FAC. Any constructive criticism is welcome, thanks. Nev1 12:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Some more copyediting needed. For example:
- "There are a total of 5 Grade II Listed Churches in Altrincham" - spell out 5, "a total of" is redundant
- "lower than the 21.3% all of Trafford" - missing an "in"
- "including the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall" - hyphen needed
- "All of these churches have been Listed Buildings since 1985" - redundant "of"
- "There is currently one synagogue" - "currently" is redundant
- Some incorrect dash usage. Epbr123 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done --Malleus Fatuorum 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Some more:
- "Since 1290 Altrincham was a Free Borough, a self governing township"
- "a population of around 67,000" - "around" isn't needed, it's indicated by the 0s
- "Running through Broadheath in Altrincham is a Roman road that links the Roman fortress of Chester (Deva) and the fort of York (Eboracum)" - comma needed either after Broadheath or Altrincham
- "and is one of only six Grade I Listed Buildings in Trafford" - is the "only" needed?
- The economy section needs info other than stats, such as on local industries. Epbr123 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Some more:
-
- Done Although I hope to find more on local industry in the present. Nev1 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment There are a few examples of several reference superscripts running one after the other (eg the demography stats). If you run them all together, separated by <br />•, it looks a whole lot neater without losing any information. I'd do it myself, but I'm tight for time. Mr Stephen 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've obviously not made it clear - sorry. See Intelligent design for an example of it in use. In markup it's
- <ref name=stats>{{cite web ...}}<br />•{{cite web ...}}</ref>
- and then <ref name=stats/> as required. Mr Stephen 17:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done I get the idea now, thanks. Nev1 18:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Are you sure? Doesn't that start a new line, which would lead to a lot of white space? Nev1 16:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - passes FAC criteria in my opinion. All requirements here have been filled out. I've used this page as a template for other projects before, and as for the comprehensiveness... — Rudget speak.work 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I like the article very much but maybe it is just me but it looks weird having a picture of the market next to the Sport section. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
*Oppose A few issues with the Sport section, which tends towards recentism. In addition to the two wins of what is now the Conference, which in the present day would earn Football League status, the football club is primarily noted for FA Cup "giant-killings" in the 1970s and 80s, beating several Football League teams and achieving draws against top division teams Everton and Spurs. The town's two previous ice hockey teams (Trafford Metros and Altrincham Aces) are not mentioned, nor is the Devonshire Road rink which for a number of years was the feature of Altrincham best known by those from other places in the region. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hey no one's perfect, I don't follow football or ice hockey. If you've got material to add, with sources, go right ahead, you certainly seem to know your stuff. Is the old ice rink notable though? I agree it was well known in Altrincham, but it has been superceded. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You need to use modern-speak for the main units: see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Which_system_to_use. Tony (talk) 05:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- It's an article about a UK settlement, so it uses the normal UK-speak for units. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to oppose, since, like similar articles with ?similar authors, the prose needs careful copy-editing throughout. Do I need to provide examples, or are you willing to engage others from related articles in the field to sift through it? Tony (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- To be fair, it's hard to know what you're objecting to without at least a few examples. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Clearly a Good article (and officially designated as such), I have a few concerns with the article. Namely:
- Per WP:LEAD and WP:MOS, the lead section possibly needs a rethink. I had a blast myself at the first paragraph, but the second seems disproportionatly large, and the third is a lone sentence. I know Altrincham to be one of the more glamorous (I am from Oldham!) or at least desirable towns in Greater Manchester, and a hub for upper-middle-classes and large detached homes - I would expect something about this in the lead (if a source can be found).
- "completion of the Altrincham section of the Bridgewater Canal in 1776" - was it actually called the Altrincham section or was it the opening of the canal upto Altrincham? Also, according to a source I have, this part of the canal was opened in 1775 not 1776 (which is when the entirity of the canal was opened). I would also consider changing the word "prosperity" with "Further economic development"' in the lead about this.
- Although not a barrier to FA as such, some of the images appear a little banal and don't seem to do the text justice. All of these are images from Flickr that have a Creative Commons licence that may allow them on Wikipedia/Wikicommons. There are even some intersting ones from the early 1900s. -- Jza84 · (talk) 18:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- 3 have been sorted out, one needs to have a new source found because the original is 404 (that's why a chached link was used). What should be done about the images of England links, are they unacceptable? Nev1 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've fixed the Images of England links (I think), that just leaves the missing page at the council web site. Mr Stephen (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. Nicely written. It was enjoyable to read. —MJCdetroit (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Note: Many of the sources have no identifiable publisher, examples:
- Anon. The History of Hale One Act Festival. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
- Anon. The Club Theatre History. Retrieved on July 10, 2007.
See WP:CITE/ES and please complete all sources to include article title and publisher, last accessdate on all websources, and author and publication date when available (it's not necessary to list "anon"). Did reviewers check reliability of sources, considering publishers aren't listed? Also, a google cache is not a reliable source, and that needs to be replaced. This source, for example:
has an author and publication date that are not listed in the footnote, and it is used more than once (please see WP:FN on how to use named refs for repeat sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Continuing to oppose until the MOS breaches are fixed. There are prose glitches, too. For example: I've fixed the first two units; the others need to be reversed. Minus sign or en dash in geog. coordinates. Read about final periods in captions, and "Words as words" at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Italics. MOS: no hyphen after "-ly". 4 --> four. Compared with, not to, for contrasts. "There is a low proportion of non-white people; 95.4% of residents were recorded as white."—are both clauses necessary? "The largest minority group was recorded as Jewish, at 2.8% of the population."—Remove "recorded as"? "Altrincham's 15.5% level of employment"—"rate of unemployment. "early 20th-century"—another hyphen required, as elsewhere in the article. Theatres "formed" or "constructed"? Unsure whether you're referring to buildings or groups of people. MOS proscribes curly quotes. "Precint" misspelling in ref section. Ref 84 specify the author. Mixed title and sentence case for titles in ref section. WP prefers sentence case, but not mandatory (should be consistent, though). Tony (talk) 04:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- As of now, the units part of the MOS is "For UK-related, the main units are either metric or imperial (consistently within an article)". That was what the MOS said for quite some time, certainly during this article's development, but there was a brief period recently when it said something else. So miles are perfectly acceptable from a WP point of view, and they are the units used on the local government web site covering Altrincham. Mr Stephen (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:TALK and the instructions at WP:FAC and undo any edits made to another editor's posts. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've undone it. Nev1 (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- ME SO WE KNOW WHAT STILL NEEDS DOING AS SOME ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED!! (WHY ARE WE SHOUTING?) Nev1 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment I would love this to be an FA, but still have some challenges which I think need to be met before I could support this, namely:
- There is a one sentence paragraph in the lead. Could this be expanded or amalgamated somehow?
- In Geography there is nothing about the built environment or urban structure of Altrincham. Subsquently, this section appears a little thin.
- In Demography could something be found about the social class of Altrincham, and some commentary about Altrincham's demography, historically?
- Present day is my largest worry. I believe material in this section could, and should, be merged into other sections. Certainly stuff about retail would be suited to Economy, whilst material about dwellings would be well placed in Geography or Demography. -- Jza84 · (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
- The one sentence paragraph in the lead has been expanded; more has been added to the demography section, including the change of social classes over the last 70 years; and the entire Present day section was moved under Economy as this seemed most appropriate (there wasn't really much on dwellings). Nev1 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I think all the units are now in the Imperial (metric) form, allowable by the MOS (and overwhelmingly used by the sources). I've been through the references and all now contain the date where given on the source. I can't see any abuses of the dash or the minus sign. Unless I've missed or forgotten something (sing!), it's compliant. I think the style issues have been addressed. Looks clear to go to me. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments. Ok, since I am going through a similar process now I thought I'd stop by. Have picked up a few uncontroversial (I hope) edits already but had the following thoughts:
- Lead - "a time when most communities were based around agriculture rather than trade" - I see this comes from the History section but it's a bold statement and a bit ambiguous in this formulation. As it stands it might refer to all "communities" in England or the local area - which is it? Also isn't agriculture part of trade? If other communities were based around agriculture, how did they prosper without trade? or are you suggesting those communities were only concerned with subsistence living? If Altrincham was a trailblazer in the area for a trading economy, this needs to be more forcefully stated and cited.
- History - "became very desirable...for rich businessmen to live" probably needs a cite. It may be that it is taken from the demographic/census stats later in the article but saying "very desirable" is a loaded statement that implies house prices rising (in today's parlance) or some evidence of folk clamoring to get in on the action.
- Done "Rich businessmen" can be a bit relative, so changed so that it refers to the middle classes.
- History - At least part of the area still seems to have been industrial around the time of WWII. Given its proximity to Manchester and the number of industrial buildings it may have been a target of Luftwaffe bombing raids. Is there anything you can add about bomb sites, damage or anti-aircraft defences? The history section drops off in the 1930s, perhaps something else happened in the last 70-80 years?
- Geography - "United Utilities obtains the town's drinking water from the Lake District". This sounds interesting and unusual. Why does Altrincham have to get its water from so far away? Does all of Manchester get its water from such a distance or are there out-of-town reservoirs and treatment plants? Is there a deficiency in the water table or some other geological reason that relates? I have not read the full report cited but it would appear this is ripe for expansion.
- Geography - What is the topography of the area? Is it flat or undulating? Is the town perched on a hill? I see that Bowden used to be downland. How does Altrincham's layout pay homage to its topography. Medieval settlements are rarely formed without reference to the lie of the land.
- Economy - "In 1801 there were four cotton mills in Altincham, part of its textile industry, although that had vanished by the mid-19th century." Presumably this was due to the nationwide decline of the industry and not a localised failing? If so, it's not clear here. Also, when were the mills actually closed? Were they demolished or did they simply adapt to new industries? Are they now trendy apartments? The use of "vanishing" is dramatic and suggests rapid decline but it is unclear how mass employers such as these disappeared off the map.
- Done Given some context.
- Economy - "stockbroker belt". Is this a term which actually used in the source? As the wiki stockbroker belt suggests this is more readily a London or Home Counties concept. It might be used incorrectly by the local populace however and as a compromise I'd suggest a "dormitory town for wealthy commuters". At the same time "sylvan opulence" is a rather grand phrase and not of universal understanding. Is this a cited term or can we tone it down?
- Economy - "The town has more recently fallen victim to decline" - what kind of decline? Is crime rife so shoppers are staying away? Are other areas more desirable for shopping? and, if so, why? Also, what part of the town has declined - the whole of it? Presumably you mean the retail districts as that is the general context but it could conceivably the residential areas that have suffered and dragged the town with them. I think it needs clarifying.
- Done Rephrased, the resaon was already there (competition from other places) but perhaps wasn't well phrased.
- Economy - "The average gross weekly income of households...was £653.." How does that compare with the national average? or the average for Greater Manchester? Non-UK readers won't have a point of reference. If Altrincham is bathing in "sylvan opulence" we need to see evidence.
- Done Figures given for the North West from statistics.gov.uk, figures for England are sadly unavailable. However, I'm not really comfortable with the term "sylvan opulence" being used in the article.
- Landmarks and attractions - "beauty spot" is not an international term of art and, as an assessment of aesthetic quality, comes across as subjective without citations. Perhaps lose the loaded introduction and just say that "On the outskirts of town are the 18th century Dunham Massey Hall and its 250 acre deer park..."
- Done Disposed of as suggested.
That's all I could see and are really just suggestions/pointers. There may be technical MOS breaches but I'm not the best person to pick those up. Will take another look in a few days and vote then. Best of luck. Dick G (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I think these are very good points. Regarding stockbroker belt specifically - I added this bite of info, and it is quoted word-for-word I'm afraid. I don't see any harm in paraphrasing this however if we need to better the context. -- Jza84 · (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Las Meninas
Co-nom with Johnbod. 1656 painting by Diego Velázquez. The article was significantly improved in the last few weeks from work and fact checking by JNW and Amanda. Ceoil (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support, when I noticed that this was at peer review, I was going to say that I would support this at fac since every thought I had was already covered, however, it is already at fac, so here I am to support. dv dv dv d 22:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - outstanding. Two minor comments though. I sympathise with your "too many to refer to" approach in cite 2, but I suggest that additionally, you include a notable instance from a leading Velazquez scholar. Second, to aid 'navigation' of the image, a 'map' of the type that can be seen (here) would be a useful addition to the prose, guiding the newcomer through the cast list of the painting. I, for example, struggled to identify the older looking woman in the background, wondering if she's a maid of honour or not. I guess I'm not the only thicko that comes to this site, so others may also struggle. Anyway, congrats on a great piece of work. --Dweller (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Good points - can anyone help with a version of the painting with numbers on for the key? I think big white numbers should work, so it can be shown small. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- First try posted at Talk:Las_Meninas#Key_by_numbers for discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 22:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Good points - can anyone help with a version of the painting with numbers on for the key? I think big white numbers should work, so it can be shown small. Johnbod (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Done now up, and snapshop point now changed Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - The article is terrific. I added this [56], (Eve Sussman’s 89 Seconds at Alcázar) to the article a while back, and it does have a very interesting cast of characters. Modernist (talk) 15:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Amazing work. "Some look out of the canvas at us" I'm not particularly fond of first person plural in an encyclopedia. Why not just "the viewer" here? Viewer is used elsewhere in the article. Also, is Las Meninas the name given to the painting by Velázquez himself, or is it a title acquired somewhere else? Rest of the article looks great though. 69.202.60.86 (talk) 16:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with comments. This is an excellent article and I'm so happy that Johnbod and Ceoil have taken it on - Las Meninias is a very important painting. I did an extensive peer review of this article, so I know how hard they have been working and this article has improved quite a bit. It read so much more smoothly this time around. I just have a few comments:
-
- Caption: Her left cheek was largely repainted following fire damage in 1734. - Her cheek was repainted in 1734 or it was damaged in 1734 or both? It is unclear - it is only clear later in the article, but I read the caption first.
- The painting has been cut down on both the left and right sides. - When? Why? What was cut off?
- Presumably no one knows, as is usually the case. From Lopez-Rey I think - Anyone? This was very often done, and very rarely documented, to large paintings, usually to make them fit a frame or a room. It could have been done at the time of painting, or after the fire. It can presumably be seen because the surface is fully painted to the edge of the remaining canvas, which is presumably nailed behind the stretcher (wooden framework), whereas normally an unpainted border is left for this. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will check further on this, from Lopez-Rey. JNW (talk) 16:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thus far I can not find specific explanation as to how much of the painting was cropped, nor when or why. The mention in Lopez-Rey seems rather matter-of-fact, though, which implies that whatever trimming was done, presumably after the fire, there was little damage to the composition. JNW (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- If we don't know when or why, but there is speculation, perhaps that speculation can be added and labeled as such. Awadewit | talk 04:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Examination under infra-red has shown that Velázquez made minor pentimenti or alterations to the figures as he worked; for example, at first his own head inclined to his right, rather than his left. - Still doesn't fit - belongs in a section on painting process or something
- I've moved the cutting-down bit up to join this, including it in the same Lopez-Rey ref, which I think is how it first was - but could someone with Lopez-Rey to hand please confirm. These are pieces of basic cataloguing information and belong here.
- Despite certain spatial ambiguities, this is the painter's most thoroughly rendered architectural space. - Paragraphs shouldn't start with "this" - best to say "this [noun]".
- Large quotes should be cut down and paraphrased. We are an encyclopedia. :)
-
- "Perhaps there exists, in this painting by Velazquez, the representation as it were of Classical representation, and the definition of the space it opens up to us ... representation, freed finally from the relation that was impeding it, can offer itself as representation in its pure form." - I think this needs to be explained - like much of Foucault, it is not very clear.
-
- The "Ovid" paragraph of "Las Meninas as culmination of themes in Velázquez" could make its main point a bit clearer. It was not entirely clear to me why it was a "culmination of a Velazquez theme".
- I've bolstered with a critical quote here - the theme itself is much too long to precis here, but the article quoted from is online.
- Footnotes 4, 26, 43, 50 are missing journal issue number and page numbers
-
- Foucault's book needs the translator's name in the bibliography
An excellent article - when I studied this painting as an undergraduate, the main points my professor mentioned were the mirror bit, the position of the spectator, and the play with perspective (in both senses of the word). Thus, I can say with some sort of certainty (!) that we have some sort of comprehensiveness (like all the hedging?). The article is well-written, well-researched, and well-illustrated. Nice work all. Awadewit | talk 04:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose.Support. Looks great! I'll change to support when a few things have been addressed. Some of these are for accord with WP:MOS:
-
- Centuries should be identified with figures: "17th century". They should not have a hyphen, unless used attributively: "In 17th-century Spain"; but "Spain in the 17th century". ("Nineteenth" is misspelt a couple of times anyway.)
- General spelling and related matters: repetitions "in in", "the the"; "The righthand wall" > "The wall to the right"; accent missing from "Velázquez" at least once (should also perhaps be checked and silently regularised in references); "betrothaled" > "betrothed to"; check original source with the title with "Barbey D'aurevilly" in it; or silently correct to "Barbey d'Aurevilly" or "Barbey D'Aurevilly" – whichever is the proper form according to WP standards.
- Variety of English: Since the article uses mainly British forms and spelling ("honour", not "honor"), this should be consistent: "center" > "centre"; "traveled" > "travelled".
- Form of punctuation marks: The article uses straight apostrophes and single quote marks as prescribed at WP:MOS, with some exceptions that need to be fixed (always overriding form given in citations): "Philip’s", "wife’s", "artists’", "Velázquez’s", "‘Las Meninas’", "Sussman’s".
- Similarly for double quote marks: “great discontinuities” > "great discontinuities"; “Enslaved sovereign: aesthetics of power in Foucault, Velazquez and Ovid” > "...".
- Silently correct nested quote marks in citations so that single quotes occur inside double quote marks. Such purely typographical amendment is standard.
- Check that all capitalisation in citations reflects WP standards.
- Where single and double quotes are adjacent (as they are more than once here), interpose a hard space, using .
- Apply hard spaces in all page references: "pp. 56–68".
- Dashes at the level of sentence punctuation (as opposed to ranges like "1599–1660") are regularly unspaced em dashes in this article. Fix the exceptions: two occurrences of spaced hyphens; one of a spaced em dash; one irregular em dash followed by a space.
- A point of usage: "while others interact between themselves" > "while others interact among themselves".
-
- As I introduced this usage, would you please explain your reason for the change? The "use between for two" and "among for more than two" rule is generally not accepted, if that is what you are thinking of. (Think: Among three points on a line.) Awadewit | talk 04:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sure I'll explain, Awadewit. I am well aware that the old pedantic prescription "between for two, among for more" is not sufficient. One source reports that Samuel Johnson promoted it, but did not adhere to it himself. On the other hand, some modern sources lean over backwards to permit "between" as promiscuously as possible. Several of these current authorities cite OED, but not with much acumen:
-
-
V. 19. In all senses, between has been, from its earliest appearance, extended to more than two. In OE. and ME. it was so extended in sense 1, in which among is now considered better. It is still the only word available to express the relation of a thing to many surrounding things severally and individually, among expressing a relation to them collectively and vaguely: we should not say ‘the space lying among the three points,’ or ‘a treaty among three powers,’ or ‘the choice lies among the three candidates in the select list,’ or ‘to insert a needle among the closed petals of a flower.’
-
- Two facts are relevant here, I think:
- 1. Neither the case you cite concerning the three points (similar to one of OED's, yes?) nor OED's cases resemble the present case closely. In none of them is there the same "free-form mutuality" as we find in "while others interact between [or among] themselves". Would you, after all, say: "The five continued to chatter between themselves"?
- 2. Well, perhaps you would say that, rather than "The five continued to chatter among themselves". But consider this: no one with a sound grasp of English would censure this "among" variant; but some with a sound grasp of English would censure the "between" variant. This consideration applies equally to the case we are dealing with.
- My reasoning was like that, and still is. Why use a form that some judge catachrestic, when you can use a form that hardly anyone will object to? I presume you would not advise anyone to write "give it to whomever wants it" (though many do write that), for the very same reason. This, despite Shakespeare's and KJV's ways with subject whom, and related common uses of whomever.
- :)
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 09:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't there also an AE/BE distinction here? Awadewit | talk 14:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- It hardly matters now, since Tony has independently fixed between to among. American–British difference? It would only be slight. This article is written in British anyway. I remind you of the last sentence of Sense and Sensibility, which perhaps shows something of the canonic distinction (though not as acutely focused for our purposes as we could wish):
-
Between Barton and Delaford there was that constant communication which strong family affection would naturally dictate; and among the merits and the happiness of Elinor and Marianne, let it not be ranked as the least considerable, that, though sisters, and living almost within sight of each other, they could live without disagreement between themselves, or producing coolness between their husbands.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 20:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Fascinating historical point, but of course using Austen, who wrote 200 years ago doesn't demonstrate modern usage. The title of that very same novel illustrates the problem beautifully. What Austen meant by "sensibility" and what we mean by "sensibility" are two very different concepts. Awadewit | talk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )
- It was just a pretty aside, Awadewit. I note that that you have countered the points I have made with nothing at all. But let's leave the topic behind, since the thing has now been superseded anyway. If we must continue this nice chat, let's do it at my talk page so we don't clutter things here.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- See talk page. Awadewit | talk 04:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- (Fascinating historical point, but of course using Austen, who wrote 200 years ago doesn't demonstrate modern usage. The title of that very same novel illustrates the problem beautifully. What Austen meant by "sensibility" and what we mean by "sensibility" are two very different concepts. Awadewit | talk 04:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC) )
- I'll have just a few more things to add when these have been fixed.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. This is just superb. I've fixed, as far as I can tell, all of Noetica's points, and copy-edited the article. Tony (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: I think that perhaps the mention of Picasso's paintings needs to be a little more detailed. The text implies (like most texts I've seen on this topic) that Picasso actually painted 58 versions of Las Meninas; but in fact many of those 58 paintings depict single characters from the original painting: see [57], for example. I think the sentence has to be reworded accordingly. Also, the picture of Picasso's painting is not low-resolution - I'm not an expert on these matters at all, but one of the license plates says "that the use of low-resolution images of works of art.. qualifies as fair use", and I thought I should mention it. Finally, if you want to use a picture of a Picasso version of Las Meninas, perhaps using a less known one would pay off: the one currently used (the grey one) is very frequently reproduced, and is perhaps somewhat misleading. Jashiin (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Done agreed. Johnbod (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Jashiin again): Another detail that may need clarification: the cross of Santiago. My Taschen album (text by Norbert Wolf; I can provide publisher info if you need it) states that Palomino's words are "a legend, of course", but the cross was indeed added later. I don't think that a small Taschen artbook is a very reliable source for a FA; but if the cross was added later (i.e. if you can find a reference for that in one of the books used to create the article), I think it should be mentioned. The way it is now, the text implies that the only fact known about the cross is that Palomino thought it was added later. Also, Palomino is named Palamino in one of the captions and in a reference; it seems to me that this is simply a typo, but I'm not sure, so I won't correct it. Jashiin (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica): I said "weak oppose", above. Most of my concerns have now been addressed, and I have spent a few hours on the article myself. I now call on the nominators of this article to fix all remaining formatting in the end matter, to conform to WP:CITE. And also please note this from Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style#Journal_articles, which is an adjunct to WP:CITE:
-
Note that the numbers after the journal title indicate: volume (issue number, optional), page numbers. Do not capitalize every word of the article title, only the first word, proper names, and the first word after a colon/period/dash. For an article that is available online, make the article title a link to the online version.
- When these matters have been addressed I'll scan through the article once more. I look forward to being able to convert my opposition to a "strong support".
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 00:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment (Noetica): I have changed my "weak oppose" to "support", above. Not strong support. I have now spent two or three more hours undoing errors, some of which had been introduced in recent days. There are still a couple of glitches with bibliographic details, and I find it regrettable that the nominators show little interest in finding or fixing these. It is, perhaps, unfair to lean on commenters like Tony and me to donate what amounts to a full day's skilled work on the hard details. But we have done it now, and I for one will do no more. Though it is not perfect, the article is now very fine indeed. I wish it had been to hand when I was in Madrid in 2005, and paid homage to Las Meninas at the Prado. I commend the article to editors here, and urge that it be accepted as a featured article without delay.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 04:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Sid Barnes
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a collaborative piece of work by many members of the cricket WikiProject. This is the latest article to be improved in a quest to achieving a Featured Topic on one of the sides Barnes represented, The Invincibles.
Barnes had a fascinating life, filled with overachievement, controversy and a dash of tragedy. We hope we've done him justice. Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Twenty Years review
The article is a very nice piece on a great of Australian cricket, but i have several issues with it:
in the section on the twelfth man incident, it uses the word "twelfth" twice, yet in the image caption it uses "12th", id personally like to see it written as twelfth.The statistical analysis section uses "Barnes's" in para 1, yet in the image caption of his career performances it uses " Barnes' ". Not sure if this is used elsewhere in the article, but "Barnes's" looks plain ugly. It should be all in one way, preferably " Barnes' "Agreed on need for consistency. Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound makes it clear it should be Barnes's, even though I'd personally go with your preference too :-) I'll fix it. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)- Done --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The statistical analysis section seems ugly, and out of place. Although it is a useful section, it needs some more information. Two small sections, and two large images is not very pleasing to the eye.Another image of Barnes wouldnt go astray (in the later career section).
Other than these minor nitpicks, the article is good for FA. Twenty Years 08:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Fully satisfied with the additions, the article is clearly ready for FA.
The last 2 para's in stat analysis could prob be merged (Comparing.... and Bradman is....).FA Quality article. Twenty Years 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support: excellent :) --Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 09:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- User:Hurricanehink review
Some comments. It seems a little too long, or perhaps the last paragraph could delve a bit more into his personal history. post-war era. - it is uncertain what war it refers to. is best remembered in cricket terms - this is a bit POV, and it would be record if the record was clearly stated (something along the lines of: Barnes and his captain both scored 234 points in X game, setting the world record for Y). While I'm thinking of it, the article needs non-breaking spaces; 2 innings instead of 2 innings. Check the wikilinks, making sure they go where you want them to go. I clicked on Twelfth man and I got a dab page. I'd like better information for each of the images. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the constructive review. My collaborators and I have worked on these issues. I'll break them down:
- "Too long". The article is comfortably within the WP:SIZE guidelines. If you mean it's imbalanced, his playing career is what makes him truly notable and we feel comfortable with the balance.
- "Post-war". Thanks. Done.
- "Best remembered". Thanks. Done.
- Non breaking spaces. Not sure what you think this would add, nor where you think they should be placed.
- Wikilinks. Good spot. Should all be done.
- Images. We're comfortable with the captions, which need to be succinct for MOS and are usually referred to in an explanatory manner by the text that they accompany.
Thanks again. You've helped improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry! I meant I thought the lede was too long. In fact, after reading it again, I think it's fine, since the third paragraph goes into his controversies. Non-breaking spaces are required for FA's, as 2 points looks better than 2
points, in the event that the number was at the end of a line. Non-breaking spaces should be used for all numbers that are followed by a unit. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)- All should be done now. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support. One last thing - I notice two books do not have ISSN numbers; do they not exist, or were they not found? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- (If Dweller doesn't mind me responding). Both were published prior to the introduction of the ISBN and ISSN systems. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, I figured it was something like that. Thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- (If Dweller doesn't mind me responding). Both were published prior to the introduction of the ISBN and ISSN systems. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support. One last thing - I notice two books do not have ISSN numbers; do they not exist, or were they not found? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- All should be done now. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support - I massaged it a bit before and feel it fulfils criteria. Prose is good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support—This is very well-written indeed, and sets the standard for sports articles. Can you space the ellipsis dots correctly? See MOS. Tony (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support This is a good article on a interesting cricket player. I think that it fully meets the FA criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
All comments above now dealt with. Any more? --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, I did a very minor amount of work on references in the early days but the article has blossomed since I left it alone (!) so I feel able to offer my full support. Good work to all involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Europa (moon)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it was reccomended for nomination upon achieving GA Serendipodous 00:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments - looks good but some tweaks'd be helpful getting this one over the line:
-
- which helped buttress the emerging heliocentric cosmology. - sentence seems to stop abruptly.
-
- "the surface is probably decoupled from the interior by a subsurface layer of liquid or ductile ice," - can this be rephrased without quotes?
-
- However, at present it is far from certain that NASA will actually fund this mission, as funding for it is not included in NASA's 2007 budget plan - does this need to be updated to 2008 now?
Otherwise a very good article and great read. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Support— I made a few minor tweaks to the text, but in all other respects the article satisfies FA criteria. It is comprehensive, well sourced and well written and deserves to be featured. The only problem that I can find in the article is lack of inline citations in the infobox. I think it should not be very difficult to add them. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Weak oppose: complete, but there isn't the bibliography. However, i'll change my vote :)--Brískelly[citazione necessaria] 17:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- If it's complete, why are you opposing? This doesn't look like an actionable comment. Pagrashtak 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I've addressed most concerns raised; there were a few refs in the infobox I haven't been able to find. Also, it seems a number of ref tags have suddenly become invalid for no apparent reason. Does anyone know why this happened? Serendipodous 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I seem to have fixed the "problem", but knowing how many refs use that particular format, these should be cropping up virtually everywhere now. Serendipodous 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support with prejudice. I was the one who passed this article for GA. I think it represents some very fine work. As an astronomer, I think it may be the best resource on this subject on-line. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support Very nice article, as said above needs inline citations, but still fine without. I would only advise possibly moving a image or two from the right side to the left. So many on the right just doesnt seem good to me. But perhaps that's just me.-Mastrchf91- 05:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Could you flag the missing citations with [citation needed]? Serendipodous 18:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support This is an excellent article on a fascinating moon. My only suggestion is to cite the last sentence in "Spacecraft proposals and cancellations." Shrewpelt (talk) 01:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support
Comment—It's a fine article overall, but I'm not quite ready to support it yet because of the following concerns:The "Orbit" section does not provide an energy source for the internal heating of Europa. It only explains the mechanism of the heat generation. It needs to explain the energy source in terms of changes in the orbits of the Galilean satellites or a slowing of the rotation of Jupiter, whichever is the correct source. (Didn't I raise this before for Io?)What does "put an upper limit on this hypothetical slippage of no faster than once every 12,000 years for the surface relative to its interior" mean? Is the exterior completing a full rotation relative to the interior during that time frame? Or does a "slippage" only occur once every 12,000 years? If the later, then what is the magnitude of the slippage?...the atmosphere would "fill only about a dozen Houston Astrodomes"... Does this mean in a solid form? Or a gas at STP?I think the article should clarify why Europa does not share the same internal heat source as the Earth: radioactive decay.
Support for a fascinating article.--GrahamColmTalk 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose—Lots of good in this article, but the writing needs improvement. Here are examples from just the lead. Please collaborate with someone fresh to the article; try locating them from the edit histories/edit summaries of FAs on similar topics.
- "shortly thereafter" --> "soon after", or better still, enlighten us as to the year.
- "Very" is usually very redundant.
- "composed" twice in two sentences, the second followed wrongly by "from".
- "Its surface is composed of ice and is one of the smoothest in the Solar System, indicating that it is very young"—the surface is (again, "very") young, or the moon is? Ah, it's clear only in the next sentence (not good).
- , which, which.
- "also drives"—remove the first word.
- "to date"—which date? What will this mean in five years' time? "As of 2007"?
- "ensures that".
- " would have specifically targeted"—Spot the redundant word.
- "Conjecture on extraterrestrial life has ensured a high profile for the moon and led to continued lobbying for future missions."—"has led"; "continued" is not right—"continual"? Tony (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
PS MOS breaches aplenty, such as "A giant tube worm colony at a Pacific ocean hydrothermal vent." (A caption that is merely a nominal group, not a sentence, and thus doesn't want a period (check others); and the muliplication symbol should be spaced. And I see ellipsis dots wrongly unspaced. Semicolon before "et al."? Hate those semicolons, anyway. "(2006-Jul-13)"—is that an acceptable date format? "19,041-19,048"—MOS breach, en dash required, and SO hard to read: "19,041–48" (better?). Tony (talk) 13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: if the spaced × is the accepted style, then it should also be applied to the {{e}} template, which is a widely-used template for inserting exponential notation.—RJH (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I addressed all these issues (except one) and MOS breaches. However I think 3×1018 looks better than 3 × 1018. In addition, in this case × is not realy a multiplication symbol. It does not symbolize any real mathemathical operation here. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Scientific Style and Format: The CBE Manual for Authors, Editors, and Publishers (ISBN 0521471540) uses spaced × in scientific notation, as does Mathematica. On the other hand, the Springer Style Guide does not. There doesn't seem to be any type of international standard, so I'm not sure why Wikipedia should be enforcing a particular style layout in this case. Perhaps the MoS consensus needs to be reexamined for scientific notation?—RJH (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Slay Tracks (1933-1969)
Self nomination I believe that this article, about the debut EP of the indie rock band Pavement, meets all of the featured article criteria. The article is extremely comprehensive given the relatively obscure subject matter, well referenced, and well written. This is the first of the Pavement releases that I hope to bring to GA/FA status. Thanks for all comments. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Great written article, very interesting. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- , then consisting of
onlyfounding - during a
singlefour hour session. - It was
alsomet with - single for $1,000 - [[United States dollar|$]] on first mention
- Young, though bewildered by the band's sound,
alsocontributed by playing drums - also is redundant - R.E.M. (band) has been moved to R.E.M.
- Malkmus
alsotold Melody Maker - also is redundant because it is the first thing from Melody Maker - Reference 34 is a fansite
- For reference 11 "MUSIC; A Thinking Slacker's - MUSIC should be in lowercase
Feel free to disagree M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also "He later recalled that " - "recalled" implies later, thus making "later" redundant M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- All of these are Done, except for the fan site reference, which I believe should stand. Matador Records links to the fan site here, which shows that Pavement's label believes that the information on it is reliable. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- All of these are
-
-
- Weak support I still don't believe the information is reliable, more like it was added to the links so fans have something interesting to read. The source of the information seems to come from randoms rather than reliable sources, which read "(thank you to jason, Lawerence KS)(thank you to andrew and max k), and there is a section on rumors which had been sent to the person who created the webpage. Other than that it's a great article, good job. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
Comment - did a minor copy-edit myself [61]. Some issues I still have:
- beginning with a ZZ Top-inspired jam - this is clearly an opinion that needs to be cited to an individual (i mean, XYZ said that he felt...)
- I couldn't find a way to word this, so I took out the ZZ Top part. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- is influenced by Chrome, Swell Maps, and The Fall. - again according to whom?
- Done
- move to Box Elder, Montana,[11] is considered an example of Malkmus's "honest, direct, and simplistic" lyrical style - considered by whom. (I think whenever Jovanovic states an opinion, you have not attributed his name to it)
- Done
- The 2nd paragraph of the music section contains 4 uses of the word "influence".
- Done All but one reworded. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Young drummed on "Box Elder" and "Price Yeah!", and much of his playing was improvised; Malkmus played on "Maybe Maybe" and Malkmus and Kannberg both drummed on "She Believes". - I suggest you rewrite that.
- Done
- is a link to discogs allowed in Wikipedia? You could argue that it is advertising for that website. Also, they display album covers etc without permission.
- Yes, it is allowed; in fact, there are three templates ({{Discogs artist}}, {{Discogs release}}, and {{Discogs label}}) intended to do exactly that. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Excellent research on a really obscure record. Just a few nitpicks:
- are musicianguide, stormloader and scaruffi reliable? WP:Albums says no I think.
- Scaruffi is confirmed to be reliable. Stormloader is a fan site, but seems to be reliable as Matador Records poins to it as a reliable Pavement live guide. So far I think I'm the only person who has used Musicianguide, which features band biographies in a manner similar to All Music Guide, but it appears reliable. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Two of the external links are not 100%.
- Done
Apart from that, great job!
- indopug (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Blackbird
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been expanded and improved since GA. Jimfbleak (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comments – I have some points on which the article might be improved:
- The English names of species, such as "blackbird", shouldn't be written with a capital letter, according to naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Animals, plants, and other organisms. - Probably done, but I'm afraid I may have missed some - Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- See item 3 of that link and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds
- Undone; see the references above for bird capitalization. Sorry (and will review later) Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- See item 3 of that link and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds
- The lead says "but a few", I don't think the word "but" is appropriate here. Done
- Avoid the use of words like "noisy" (lead). Done
- Split the sentence about singing and nests (lead).{{done}
- Try to group information about location in the lead.{{done}
- Avoid the use of "is most likely to be confused" and (Similar species). Done
- The English names of species, such as "blackbird", shouldn't be written with a capital letter, according to naming conventions Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Animals, plants, and other organisms. - Probably done, but I'm afraid I may have missed some - Nousernameslefttalk and matrix? 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Support
Nearly nearly there- couple of things that have just come to mind on comprehensiveness: cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything on phylogenetics/evolution - what are its closest relatives within Turdus, also just a little on what lies in Turdidae may be good, but not a deal-breaker.
I am about 98% sure the introduction to Oz and NZ was by the Acclimatisation society but I don't have a ref. Their 19th century antics are interesting and this is an absolute key article to link to them. I'll see what I can find but can't promise I can prioritise this highly.
- I'm sure you're right, they are the usual suspects, but I can't find a definitive confirmation -thanks for the dates, I couldn't get those myself. Jimfbleak (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Overall very good - maybe ask Sabines Sunbird for some help with research papers.
Support Comments: Overall this article looks good. It is well-written and well-cited and has both good and geographically varied pictures of the bird. I gave the article a few tweaks and have just a few suggestions I would like addressed before I support.
- I would consider moving Taxonomy to becoming the first section per other bird FAs and so that the reader would have some reference before hitting the subspecies references in Description. Done
- Under distribution, what elevation do the birds go up to? Done
- Why was the Newfoundland bird accepted as wild while the Quebec one wasn’t?
-
- Not known, should I remove Quebec ref?
- No, leave it in, no reason to cut it though elaboration would have been nice Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not known, should I remove Quebec ref?
- In Taxonomy’s second paragraph, could you clarify what “but not to one or other common black European birds,” means? Maybe rephrase? Done
- Could you provide scientific names for all species in Taxonomy’s third paragraph? Done
- When you refer to subspecies in Behavior, maybe you should include genus and species along with the subspecific name (looks weird by itself), ie F.a. rufousus Done
Other than these, I think that the article looks pretty good. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good now. I supported above. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
- "There are about 65 species of medium to large thrushes in the genus Turdus, characterised by rounded heads..." should it say "genus Turdus, which are characterised by..."
- "Young birds vary in the shade of brown, with darker birds presumably males." the phrasing is a bit awkward. maybe say "Young birds are varying shades of brown; the darker birds are presumably male."?
-
- -heyjude. 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Full disclosure, I am a member of WP:BIRD but have had no part in working on this article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] Hamlet
This article is about one of the world's most famous plays. As Shakespeare said, it's just "words, words, words" but—as it's the result of much dedicated work by knowledgeable editors such as Wrad and AndyJones, and with Awadewit providing valuable reviews and copy-tasting—you should find them in a pleasing and coherent order. With the mass of available material, the great difficulty has not been to fill the page, but rather to keep the article to manageable proportions. Enjoy reading the article and I hope that you find things in it that you didn't know :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support. I'm a big contributor to this article and I think it meets the criteria. I'll be monitoring this page throughout the process to help fix whatever is pointed out that we might have missed. Thanks in advance! Wrad (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment. I'm also a major contributor to the article and I'm on hand to help out with any issues which arise. Also, in addition to the credits above, I'd add a tribute to the excellent work of DionysosProteus. AndyJones (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - After putting these poor editors through the wringer several times over, I'm happy to support this excellent article. Its research is impeccable, its content is clearly and coherently presented, and its writing is meticulous and brilliant. Users who come to this article will have found a real gem. Awadewit | talk 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support I can't think of anything that's been missed. Incredibly thorough, and well-written to boot. If only the rest of our articles on Mr. Shakespeare's works receieved such attention. :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 23:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Support Wonderful article, nothing seems to be missed, professional standard of writing and well presented, what more can you ask? Harland1 (t/c) 12:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. As an ex-theatre and twice-over English major, I've read this play more times than I can count and even I learned something after reading this article. It is incredibly and meticulously well written and entirely comprehensive. Even the images are spectacular. This really sets the bar for theatre Featured Articles; I hope other Shakespeare plays *cough*Macbeth*cough* will follow in its footsteps! Fantastic and admirable work by all involved. María (habla conmigo) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Support. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the play's incarnations. It describes how Hamlet was adapted to meet the needs of specific cultures or to address popular political concerns. The discussion of critical perspectives struck me as inclusive, and I found the sections concerning the play's sources and rhetorical devices informative. The article is well referenced and includes illustrative (sometimes amusing) details. It is beautifully written. Overall, this is an extremely impressive piece. It has my full support. -- twelsht (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - Fine article. I thing though - link Elizbethean in the lead and once in the body. And feel free to delink Denmark, Japan and Australia; I thought it was mandatory to link countrieas :) indopug (talk) 06:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment
Why is talkies italicised?
-
Fixed. Good catch! --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Most film versions don't have a link to film itself (Oliver's, Hawke's, Gibson's).
-
Fixed. Well spotted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is Denmark not linked in the lead (or later on as well)?
-
It wasn't linked in the lead but was further down. I've reversed this now so the link is on the first mention only.
"the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language"- shouldn't these be attributed to somebody (XYZ believes that Hamlet is...)? It is an opinion...
-
The sources for all these are already cited but I've moved the flags closer.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"puzzled over this delay" - what does that mean exactly? Was/is 3 hours too long for a play?
-
Fixed (clarified). --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
"Hamlet's sources probably include an..." - so Hamlet wasn't Shakespeare's original? Shouldn't that be mentioned before?
-
Interesting point! The prose and the dramatic structure is Shakespeare's, based on plot elements from earlier works. This is mentioned in the lead, and has a whole section devoted to it elsewhere, so it's not buried. As this is not primarily what Hamlet is famous for, on balance, I think the weight and prominence is about right.--ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Indo-European links to an disambiguation page.
-
Fixed. Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
One of the links is not 100% (check the top of this page for checking links).
-
Fixed. Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Indopug (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
*Further comments - Tending toward support but still a few niggles,
-
"and provided a storyline capable of seemingly endless adaptation." - POV. You've extrapolated your own conclusions from the fact that there are many adaptations> It reads more like gushing fan-boyism than encyclopedic.
-
Sorry about that. Replaced it with an almost identical quote from Arden. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"begin to view Hamlet as confusing and inconsistent" - is that Hamlet or Hamlet? Regardless, I suggest you search for the term "Hamlet" in the article one last time and fix any possible MoS errors.
-
It can apply equally to both but as the focus is mostly on the man it's probably best left as it is. We can add words to explain all this, of course, but I'm not sure that would add much to the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is ELECTRONOVISION written weird? What is it anyway?
-
I'll make it a link and provide more info at the other end. I'll report back tomorrow. AndyJones (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Trade mark. It looks a bit better in SMALL CAPS than CAPS, though.--ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Link Victorian, West German, Japanese. Delink the 2nd Oedipal.
-
Done. Not sure how much it adds though. De-linked numerous complexes. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it necesary to mention why Gibson and Close were famous? The movies section is a little clutteres as it is.
-
I didn't write that but I guess it adds background and doesn't hurt.--ROGER DAVIES talk
-
FWIW, I'm in favour of keeping this in. It's the kind of thing that makes an article interesting and memorable, because it enables the reader to relate what she is learning about Hamlet to things she may already know about those films, or about that phase of Mel Gibson's career, etc. AndyJones (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
As regards to my sources complaint in my previous review, I mentioned Hamlet's sources. My poblem was that as we are reading the Lead, we abruptly come across mention of Hamlet's sources. Not knowing much about the subject, I had no clue what you trying to convey. I suggest something like: "Shakespeare based Hamlet on earlier legends mostly of Indo-European source..." or something to that effect.
-
Thanks for explaining. Now that that's clear, it can be easily fixed (I think). --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Done. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
"the greatest exhibition of his powers" and "one of the most powerful and influential tragedies in the English language" - I'm not saying that these statements aren't cited; it would be better to move those flags back to after the full-stops. What I am saying is these statements are opinions; and they can applied to any of Shakespeare's works, Othello, Macbeth etc. Hence, the prose should read: "Literary critic John Doe believes that Hamlet is 'the greatest exhibition of his powers'." and so on. Even if it is backed by reference, it is an opinion, and the holder of that opinion should be named in the prose itself.
-
Are they opinions or statements of fact? They merely summarise what follows in the body of the article. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you make sure the images keep alternating from left to right as far as possible? Also, is there a free pic of Hamlet talking to the skull in his palm; it is the most iconic image of Hamlet for the common man?
-
I know. I love that one too but I couldn't find one. Sorry, --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I notice we have Image:Sarah-Bernhardt (Hamlet).jpg. AndyJones (talk) 09:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Discussion at Talk:Hamlet. --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
indopug (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose.[See my new opinion, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)] A great article, in need of just a little final polishing. I've given the first few sections a light copyediting, and I will do the same to the remainder when I have time, soon. I ask the nominator of the article to attend to two things, which I am not inclined to labour over myself:
-
- Regularity of punctuation in citations (for example, presence or absence of a final full stop; exact position of that full stop); a full check of compliance with WP:CITE.
- Correct use of the hard space ( ), as prescribed at WP:MOS for avoiding improper
page breaksline breaks. [Sorry!–N]
- (PS: This is not prescribed - MOS says "A spaced slash may be used" - and in any case, if used, introduces additional fiddliness in the form of hard spaces. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
- Done Wrad (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Argghhh, I meant line breaks. In fact, Wrad, there is more to do! And things like "pgs." meaning "pages" are an anomaly. Someone has to check these things systematically. :)
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then I guess I'll have to ask you to explain things better. I don't really understand anything you've said in these bullet points. Might as well be gibberish. I'm one of the 99.9% of Wikipedians who don't know much about MoS nitty-gritty :) . Wrad (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wrad, let's look at some of the "footnotes" together (not really footnotes, are they? Could equally be called "endnotes"):
- Saxo and Hansen (1983, 176–25)
- Um, what does the range "176–25" mean?
-
- I'm damned if I know either :) could someone with access to Saxo fix this please?
- Saxo and Hansen (1983, 66–67)
-
- That's better! The range makes sense here. But then the very next note:
- Jenkins (1982, 82–5).
- Riiight... seems to be OK. We'd need to remove that full stop, yes? The others didn't have that. And so for all the notes. They need to be consistent, at least. And then, the range is specified differently here. Earlier we had a range like this: 66–67. So this one should be 82–85, for consistency. That needs to be fixed throughout, also.
- Britton (1995, 207—211)
- That's an em dash; should be an en dash like the others. (See good explanation of their different roles at WP:MOS.)
- Fixed typo. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Morrison (2002, 249–50).
- The full stop? Why is the range not "249–250", like the preceding example?
- [...] The New Cambridge series has begun to publish separate volumes for the separate quarto versions that exist of Shakespeare's plays (Irace 1998).
- That's a complete sentence from the end of a note. As a sentence, it has a full stop. But look:
- [... ] The whole conversation between Rozencrantz, Guildenstern and Hamlet concerning the touring players' departure from the city is at Hamlet "F1" 2.2.324–360
- That's another sentence at the end of a note. Why is there no full stop? To stop or not to stop, that is the question. Suggestion: have a full stop at the end of every note. Quietus make.
- Thompson and Taylor (2006a, 126–131).
- Thompson & Taylor (2006a, 74).
- Well? Ampersand ("&") or "and"? Choose, then act! (Let not this FAC now turn awry, / and lose the name of action.)
- Ampersands to and, where appropriate. (I've been meaning to do this for weeks. Thanks for reminding us.) -ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- See? Not rocket science. Consistency carries a great deal of weight.
- The rest is silence. For now, anyway.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Wrad, let's look at some of the "footnotes" together (not really footnotes, are they? Could equally be called "endnotes"):
- Well, then I guess I'll have to ask you to explain things better. I don't really understand anything you've said in these bullet points. Might as well be gibberish. I'm one of the 99.9% of Wikipedians who don't know much about MoS nitty-gritty :) . Wrad (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- When those things are duly done, and I've had a chance to make adjustments to punctuation and a couple of small matters of style ("en route" > "on the way", for walking to a bedchamber!), I'll be happy to give this article my full endorsement.:– Noetica♬♩ Talk 06:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- ("En route" arguably expresses better—by conveying a sense of time and distance—the considerable intervening action. But these are matters of taste and nuance, rather than right or wrong. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC))
-
- Incidentally, I've just gone through your earlier CE, very helpful. Thank you: ) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Unless you're proposing a hard space in the middle of every page ref - like this (2006:
34) - these are (with the exception of the errant Saxo ref) all now duly done.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC) - Saxo ref is fixed now. Wrad (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thank you very much for the many hours you spent over the weekend at the Hamlet coalfield chipping away at dashes and spaces :) Is it now cured? Or does Hamlet still contain flaws fatal to your support of its candidacy? --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Roger, thanks for your note at my page. I am not proposing such a thing as "(2006:
34)" everywhere. "'Twere to consider too curiously, to consider so," as Horatio has it. The hard spaces that we now have in the article are fine. Several editors have been chipping away at it the meantime, with skill and with the best intentions. I am not happy with all of these changes. May I presume to look over the whole thing one last time, and fix just the odd nuance? Of course it can all be altered again later. (I'm sorry: though I appreciate the old-world splendour of "believed written", I'm not sure that it touches the modern neocortex.) Trust me now: I'll get straight onto this, and then sign off on this... beauty of the wikiworld, the paragon of articles. - – Noetica♬♩ Talk 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Right, 'tis accomplished. I stand by all my edits, except those that are foolish or wrong (all 0.0001% of them). See my new comment, way below.– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The formula "believed written" is a nuanced consensus solution to the contentious problem of dating Hamlet. Some editors wanted weasel words like "probably written" or "may have been written": others something much more unambiguous. If you can come up with something equally concise and equally neutral, I'd be pleased to hear it. Incidentally, despite its alleged olde-worlde-charm, the phrase "believed written" still generates 1,600 hits on Google. Parallel constructions - "believed lost", "believed killed" and "believed stolen" - generate 49,000, 46,000, and 15,000 hits respectively. Which suggests the construction is not as disconnected as you may think and further suggests it need not be dumbed down. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see we're back to "probably written". I'll change this to "almost certainly written" to reflect the lengthy discussions on the Hamlet page and at the Shakespeare Wikiproject page about degrees of probability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Almost certainly written" is a better solution. (I know all about "nuanced"! Do what you like with that.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'll add it later, though it is precisely the same formula that was used to resolve another similar problem, and therefore also appears in par. four of the intro. --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Almost certainly written" is a better solution. (I know all about "nuanced"! Do what you like with that.)– Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see we're back to "probably written". I'll change this to "almost certainly written" to reflect the lengthy discussions on the Hamlet page and at the Shakespeare Wikiproject page about degrees of probability. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Roger, thanks for your note at my page. I am not proposing such a thing as "(2006:
-
Strong support. This is a remarkably good article. It did need some fresh eyes on it, and it has now benefited from several pairs of those. My own eyes are red with tiredness, so if I have made any SILLY errors as I edited past midnight here in Australia, please fix them. There were errors of punctuation still to fix, and such errors as Tarquinus for Tarquinius, and a few dozen others. You might like to examine them closely before reverting!
-
- I have no problem with the article as it is now improved. I commend it to editors here, and urge that it be promoted as a featured article without delay.
- – Noetica♬♩ Talk 14:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support, but there are still issues. Here are a few in the lead.
-
- "Hamlet's uncle has stolen not only the throne but taken also Hamlet's mother"—The position of "also" doesn't work. Remove "but taken"?
-
- Removed the not only but also completely. It reads better without this, I think.--ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- I smell a rat here: "each has lines—and even scenes—missing from the others"—so each has scenes missing from the others? What's the "even" doing?
-
- Occupying "entire"'s seat, who slipped into it a short while back :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Too sharp a boundary in the semicolon, an opportunity for ellipsis missed, and possible overuse of commas: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge; and it ends, more than three hours later, with the fulfilment of that desire." --> "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends more than three hours later with the fulfilment of that desire.
-
- This sentence has become steadily more intricate over the last twenty-four hours (see talk page). I've now recast it as: "The play starts with Hamlet's desire for revenge, and ends three hours later with the fulfilment of his desire", which I hope satisfies everyone (though I'd prefer something crunchier, as I dislike the way the symmetry and cadence of the sentence is now lost at the end). --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- "in the four hundred years that have since elapsed, it has been played by the greatest actors—and sometimes actresses—of each successive age". Remove "that have" and "elapsed"; the wording suggests that the whole cast is either male or female.
-
- Cut this as suggested. The "it" ellipses "title role", which I've made more explicit. (There's a huge ref bang in the middle of the sentence, which makes it a devil to edit.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- And at random before I stopped sampling below the lead:
- MOS breach. This caption is just a nominal group, not a full sentence, and should have no final period: "A facsimile of Saxo Grammaticus' Gesta Danorum, which contains the legend of Amleth".
-
- Done this, and recast for tidyness where a sentence followed a fragment. (Incidentally, though this is really a discussion for another place, some MoS guidance over points and citations would be useful. Points after footnote fragment are redundant.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- "It was also at this point that critics started to focus on Hamlet's delay as a character trait, rather than a plot device."—"Also" is idle, here. In fact, it's odd to refer to "By the 19th century" as a point. Hamlet's delay cannot be a trait itself; surely it results from a character trait.
-
- "Then too, critics started ..." does it, I think. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Caption: "skill.(Artist ..."—missing space.
-
- Sorted. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- "highly-developed"—MOS breach; read up on hyphens. "Best known" needs a hyphen.
-
- Fixed. I hadn't noticed that before. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- MOS: ellipsis dots need spacing (check the original punctuation after "thoughtful").
-
- Done this. And changed "[...]" to " ..." throughout because the braces are another complication, are applied inconsistently, are visually disruptive, and are not MoS-mandated. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- 184–5: my pet hate. It's not mandatory, but a minimum of two closing digits is normal. Should be written into MOS.
-
- I've put full ranges throughout. (And yes, I'll support its inclusion in MOS :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- These issues, easily found, suggest the need for another good copy-editor who has the benefit of fresh eyes. Probably 40–60 minutes would make it perfect, and would be an enjoyable task for the right person. Well done, folks; it's going to be a spankingly good FA. Tony (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I'll probably get around to a close reading of the article later, but for now, could you check to make sure that the links under the External links section comply with WP:EL? Links to blogs, for example, are probably not necessary. BuddingJournalist 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- We had a discussion about this earlier, and decided to keep the blog. It has incredibly high-quality, well-written analysis of performances of Hamlet. Since that decision, though, new people have come in. We can change if we want, but I'd like to keep it. The only one I have a bit of a problem with is Hamlet Regained, as it is a personal web site and has an unprofessional tone at times, though it does have many other stronger points. Wrad (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Ah, I see. How about the new one that was just added? Note that the editor's contribs look kind of sketchy. Is the site useful/necessary? BuddingJournalist 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yes, the user seems to be a spammer pure and simple. We can discuss with him if his behaviour becomes a problem. The site looks quite good, but I don't think that link is appropriate, really - in a featured article candidate we should be particularly choosy. I have moved it to Hamlet on screen, though, where it fits better. AndyJones (talk) 08:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comments
-
- Why is the first sentence of the article a double passive sentence ("believed to have been written")?
-
- I wrote this as "believed written" and it has been "corrected" on numerous occasions by drive-by editors to the current form. I'll happily change it back but I doubt the change will survive long. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Why are the subsection headings in "Context and interpretation" adjectives instead of nouns?
-
- This could easily be fixed, but I'm curious to know why you don't like them as they are? AndyJones (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- I noticed it, but I don't consider it a big problem; although it could sound strange, when someone wants to refer to such a subsection ("read about it in the subsection 'Philosophical'"), because it is not a standalone word. – Ilse@ 11:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Because they are types of context or interpretation and therefore ellipse the nouns in the section heading. The sub-sections refer to religious context not religion, philosophical interpretation not philosophy and so forth. I'd probably recast your note as "read about it in the #Philosophical and #Religious contexts subsections :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Image:Hamlet 2000 poster.jpg does not contain information significant for the readers' understanding of the article that cannot be conveyed in words alone, its subject (the film) is not critically discussed in the article so the image is just for decoration, and the source is not mentioned on the image's description page; it fails WP:NFCC policy #8 and #10, and should therefore be removed from this article.
-
- This may be an opportunity to use the Bernhardt image (see above). I had wondered about the Hawke image, myself. AndyJones (talk) 11:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Indeed. Fortuitous that :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Ethan Hawke duly removed.--ROGER DAVIES talk 11:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the external links could be written in a consistent format.
-
- What format do you suggest? --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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 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 promoted 22:39, 7 January 2008.
[edit] 1080° Snowboarding
This article represents many months worth of work, and I think it’s finally ready. The first nomination highlighted many problems, which have now been addressed, and the second nomination was withdrawn by me personally in late November, for lack of paper resources. With the help of several editors, the article now contains two Edge reviews, the CVG review (Computer and Video games magazine), and a retrospective review from Official Nintendo Magazine to balance things up, as well as the manual. Any suggestions or comments would be welcomed.--CM (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Here's my critique:
- I'd question the Mobygames in external links. This doesn't provide anything beyond what this article offers, and is quite unreliable, apparently.
-
- Done
- Ref 42 is broken; even still, I'm not sure about "FryGuy64" as an author of this link. Are you allowed to use forum names? Even still, how reliable can something be from this person?
-
- Done new ref
- Unless I'm missing something, ref 2 and 16 are exactly the same—they should be under the same name.
-
- Done
- "one-on-one or single player snowboard racing video game"—"one-on-one" seems too infromal and jargon-like. Isn't multi-player applicable?
-
- Done but not sure if its an improvement
- "The game plays by controlling"—nice to know that the game can play itself, please reword.
- "from the third-person perspective, and uses a combination" the transition here seems awkward to me.
-
- um....what transition? I don't really see how the sentence can be be improved. Do you have something in mind?
- Sorry, I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. User:Jay32183's edit is what I wanted relating to this. It is an improvement :) Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- So its Done I guess then.
- So its
- Sorry, I just don't have a clue what I'm talking about. User:Jay32183's edit is what I wanted relating to this. It is an improvement :) Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- um....what transition? I don't really see how the sentence can be be improved. Do you have something in mind?
- "The game features five playable snowboarders representing four countries and contains eight levels." I'd omit "representing four countries" to make it more concise.
-
- Done gone
- A pedantic one maybe: "The game spawned the sequel 1080° Avalanche". I'd reword it. Technically, to spawn means to make an offspring, or to produce. But then this word should be related to the makers and not the game.
-
- Tried a couple words. I think spurred works. Do you know of anything better?
- I've said this in the old FAC, but the lead is still too short—especially if it is to become an FA.
-
- Not sure on this one; its a rather small article (several years old, no story) what do you think I should expound upon within the lead?
- Firstly, one question I want to ask is whether the characters have backstories—or any vestige of a plot to it—apart from their countries; if so, it should be included, and maybe a brief mention in the lead. As for the lead, maybe another sentence on gameplay; maybe another sentence Avalanche (brief). Possibly a mention of sales. Also, "The game features five playable snowboarders and contains eight levels." seems to fit better in the first paragraph. The lead is a trick area, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- No back stories, no plot. There isn't even any talking between the characters at any time either. I added in a clause about sales, and Pagrashtak just rewrote the lead. Is it up to snuff?
- Firstly, one question I want to ask is whether the characters have backstories—or any vestige of a plot to it—apart from their countries; if so, it should be included, and maybe a brief mention in the lead. As for the lead, maybe another sentence on gameplay; maybe another sentence Avalanche (brief). Possibly a mention of sales. Also, "The game features five playable snowboarders and contains eight levels." seems to fit better in the first paragraph. The lead is a trick area, though. Ashnard Talk Contribs 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not sure on this one; its a rather small article (several years old, no story) what do you think I should expound upon within the lead?
- "Each snowboarder has different abilities and is suited for different levels and modes." Please expand on what is meant. Does this mean statistically, or specific skills; if so specifiy, or give an example. Same for this: "Each board also excels in different situations". Do the boards have a particular weight or asymmetry in design to each other? Abilites is too broad to leave unexplained.
-
- Better now?
- Definitely, yes.
- Better now?
- "one from Canada, one from United States, one from the United Kingdom, and two from Japan." To refrain from repeating "one from", how about "two from Japan, and one each from Canada, America, and the United Kingdom".
-
- Done
- "1080° was the clear leader among snowboarding titles of the era". Firstly, who defines "era" here? What era? Secondly, who said this? "Clear" may seem a bit too POV here, too.
-
- IGN said this, and I think I made that more clear that more clear in the rewrite
- "[t]he crouch move alone - which makes for supertight turns - makes this fun to play": I hope the source did actually use these hyphens here. This is not a fault, I'm just making sure.
-
- Yeah they did
- "1080°'s sound effects were also critically praised." I'd give a quote here, since this is the only mention of music.
-
- Done Added some.
- "it sold fewer copies than its programmers' first game, Wave Race 64, with 1,950,000 units in total with 154,000 in Japan." I'm not totally sure on this, but this may constitute Original synthesis. But as I say, I may be wrong.
-
- Done Fixed it to be safe
I hope that this helps. Ashnard Talk Contribs 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Support: Well-written and comprehensive. You've done a great job for such an old and obscure game. The last reservation I have is that you may want to consider merging some paragraphs in "Development" to improve presentation. You have multiple short paragraphs currently. This is only a suggestion, though. Well done. Ashnard Talk Contribs 10:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Support the article is comprehensible, and well-referenced. Seems enough to finally pass. igordebraga ≠ 19:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Conditional support. Great work on getting the article up to this level. The sentence about music in the development section seems oddly placed, right after the information about the game's release, which to me should be the closing statement of the section. And the word "finally" doesn't make any sense, given that the music was composed before the game's release, not after (as the word "final" would imply). Could you possibly move it up in the section a little bit with the rest of the development info, perhaps to the end of the paragraph above it? I can't see anything else that I'd really change. Green451 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Done I think it was originally a below-par execution on my part of one of Ashnard's suggestion to merge the paragraphs. "Finally" only implied it was the last idea in the section, but I think both of your suggestions finish off development properly now. Other suggestions?--CM (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note to director: Green451 did a couple rounds of suggestions and reviewing of the article for me in May 2007 (similar to an informal peer review/copyedit). I'm not sure how noteworthy this is, but I thought I might mention it.--CM (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was just about to mention it, in fact. If it forces me to recuse from declaring support, so be it, but I will if I can. On a separate note, thanks for fixing that so quickly, Clyde. One more thing I just spotted is that when comparing the All Game Guide review to the CVG review, you say that they "disagreed". I know you're referring to their opinions on the difficulty of the control scheme, but the way it is currently makes it briefly confusing to a first-time reader as if they disagreed on the how good the control scheme was, period, even though they both liked it in the end. Some clarification might be useful here. Green451 (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Support (if my contributions earlier don't invalidate it.) Green451 (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support A lot of quality work was put into this article by CM. It deserves to be featured. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
![[15]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Emma_Watson.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://web.fccj.org/~smilczan/Two5/tony/Lead.jpg){kind=link}
